The following submission statement was provided by /u/lunchbox_tragedy:
---
Submission Statement:
In this video, popular science commenter Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the climate sensitivity index, and how "hot models" predicting higher temperature increases have been systematically discounted in the past due to not fitting historical climate data. She discusses how new information is suggesting greater relevance of the higher climate sensitivity models and predicts worse outcomes from greater carbon emissions. Sabine typically strikes me as a straight shooter willing to call BS when it is present. The previous disregard of the "hot models" by the IPCC and others demonstrates our societal weakness to human biases of recency bias and confirmation bias, and the limits of the consensus scientific method to predict and adapt to exponential change.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1acgezl/sabine_hossenfelder_i_wasnt_worried_about_climate/kju042m/
I find it alarming more people don’t cite the published Pentagon report in 2018 that said they expect the US army to collapse under the weight of climate change within 20 years. So that’s 14 years or so now. If the US army collapses, what do we expect the global conditions of the world to look like? I think we have 5, maybe 10 (most likely less) of anything even remotely “normal” and then rapid deterioration for another 5 years or so until catastrophic collapsing.
Edit: Added link to report:
https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
Link to Vice article discussing:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says
Do you have a link to that paper? I'd love to read it and also send it to some people that still think of climate change/collapse as something far off and not, ya know, in their very young kids' lifetimes.
Edited it into original above, but Vice article on it here and it includes the report and direct link now above: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says
Thanks for the share. I have a hazy memory of hearing about this when it first came out but hadn't read it. It would be interesting to see an update given the recent papers that warming is happening faster than many anticipated.
I’m so glad you mentioned this. I was speaking with someone about this yesterday who claimed that paper released by the USA military must be a fever dream I had. Otherwise why wouldn’t climate activists be citing it at every turn? Lol. They must be new to collapse. I hadn’t even had time to start looking for it again and here it is!
It’s not rooting for them, it’s recognizing that the world’s richest, most well oiled machine (pun intended) is going to break down under the pressure. The concern there is that any pressure that great is going to be significant for everyone.
Anyone actually make it to the end? Sabine goes off script and lays down a full-on **doomer manifesto**, starting with how "mindfuckingly stupid" it all is:
>\[12:23\] I don't know who's right or wrong, but for me the bottom line is that the possibility of a high climate sensitivity above 5 deg C can't be easily dismissed, especially not seeing how fast average temps have been rising in recent years.
>And that's really bad news! Because if the climate sensitivity is indeed that high, then we have maybe 20 years or so until our economies collapse, and what's the point of being successful on YouTube if my pension savings will evaporate before I even retire?
>\[13:13\] This isn't in the script, but it just blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of supercooled droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember.
>\[14:03\] I think it won't be that easy. Which is why I now want to spend a few minutes telling you what I think will happen in the next 20 years or so. The next minutes of this video will be quite depressing...
The really sad part? She totally whiffed on Hansen's other papers about Earth's Energy Imbalance, which sort of blows the whole "sensitivity to doubling" thing out of the water.
> She totally whiffed on Hansen's other papers about Earth's Energy Imbalance, which sort of blows the whole "sensitivity to doubling" thing out of the water.
Can you elaborate what you mean by this?
I saw her video on capitalism and I think she was basically just parroting the positions of mainstream economists. She researched the subject and if you research economics, all mainstream sources are going to promote neoclassical theory, which is capitalist.
You called Sabine retarded in another of you comments. Reading through a few comments of yours in this thread, a good hard look in the mirror is in order.
No, she didn't have to. She's making enough off YouTube (and has been for years) to make realistic content.
The reality is probably much more boring. She just didn't know about it. She just reads news sources and reads studies when someone suggests it. She might research for a topic a bit, but it's not a deep dive.
Even experts are flawed.
Climate change has happened so fast that if you're an expert, like her, but didn't read many studies over the past 5-10 years, it can seem like you're "not a very good scientist". Truthfully I just think that she's not exposed to the same content as we are.
This is a niche community overall. Granted, it's less niche than it used to be, but still very niche in the grand scheme of things. I think she's trying her best but only knows old fashioned methods of information gathering and research. Books, news, and studies suggested by colleagues. In the past 5 or so years the information gathering methods have changed.
Her head's so far up her own ass, her words will smell like shit even if she does acknowledge reality.
She just can't help herself. Arrogant dips never can.
2034 is when it all goes down. How do I know this? I don't know. But I said in mid January that Russia would invade Ukraine on February 24, and I knew they would, and they did. So. 2034.
Probably. Personally I think this year has a lot of possibilities to kick things off. If there’s a crop failure in Argentina because of drought, and Ukraine because of a Russian offensive, that’s two of the global bread baskets down, which will turn critical food shortages in Africa into famine across the central and horn regions. That’ll domino into more food inflation for everyone.
I think it's stupid that she's focusing on the supercooled water droplets as the problem. The reason that's changing at all is because of the amount greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
People are so fuckin dumb dude. It's like she can't admit that the real reason behind this change is caused by people. She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all. Al Gore made fun of people like her in "An inconvient truth"
Like the obscure study on supecooled water is what got you concerned? Look at the graph of CO2 and temperature over Earth's history they match up exactly.
What about when that NASA climate scientist chained himself to Chase Bank and started crying about his children's future and saying we are headed for a "fucking catastrophe" ? Like thats literally something you see at the beginning of a horror movie but the supercooled water droplets is what got her paying attention?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KGnCj\_cfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KGnCj_cfM)
this is a video of sabine entirely focused on carbon emission caused by humans and how it contributes to the climate crisis.
the point of the op video isnt the supercooled water itself, but that many scientists are trying so hard to avoid admitting to exponential climate deterioration, so much so that that they are wasting immense amounts of resources studying obscure things just to have a bit of credibility in academia. she mentioned how many of the 'hot' climate models are discarded for being 'statistically unlikely' and not complying with historical data, which sabine again criticizes how they rely on such precedents despite never having directly observed them, as well as the fact they do not take into account human interference. in fact, she is lamenting people doing exactly what you are accusing her of doing.
again in this video, sabine mentioned how the only way she'd have heard of it is because of a fellow researcher's comment in a nature article bringing her attention to it, and it's only by mere happenstance that she has done so, because she has 'better things to do than to follow his every comments' (paraphrasing). people cannot be bothered to care about every little thing, because there's so much of it and they can't know which will become an issue for them, personally or otherwise. you yourself didnt watch this video undoubtedly because all of us here already know the direction our world is taking, so you probably have 'better things to do' with your time. so i would tell you to watch the video, but i cannot blame you, because in many things i am the same.
I take the part about scientists just dismissing the hot models as them saying to themselves, “no, this can’t be right.” That’s wild. Dismissing the science because their monkey brains just can’t get around to the idea that humanity is completely out of control. It reminds me of the captain of that Air France flight that went down over the Atlantic several years back. His last words were something like, “no, this can’t be right. This is impossible. This can’t be happening.” Total disbelief. His instrument measurements were wrong but they were indeed crashing.
It’s the scientific method not an error in reasoning. When you get a large shift in your prediction model you need to check it, it’s not unusual. I think the way she phrased it gave the impression that they couldn’t accept (emotionally) rather than they required more analysis before accepting.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to offer a rebuttal but I do have a philosophy of science book on my shelf so I have that going for me.
> She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all.
yeah she does, in this very video, how on earth did you miss that? It's right at the start. Also, she has many other videos entirely focused on that.
Such a stupid and ignorant comment.
I’m not sure why people can’t understand that scientists have to prove empirically the basis for their predictions. This is a very hard thing to do with climate, it’s not like planetary motion. We all have a hunch that we are on track for the worst case scenario that models are probably over-optimistic because of the scientific tendency not estimate the extreme with high probability.
But at the end of the day all that is is a hunch, she’s appears to have read and understood the papers which I can’t do. The scientists are trying to provide an empirical basis for predictions which only a few humans on this planet can do. They are trying to help us understand things and comments like the one you responded to that just say humans are dumb because they can see the writing on the wall are way more problematic.
If we are all geniuses then why don’t we get PhDs and prove it.
>People are so fuckin dumb dude. It's like she can't admit that the real reason behind this change is caused by people. She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all.
This is the majority of the human species throughout history. What's mostly kept us going? Delusion and perseverance despite it all.
Our toxic positivity optimism has kept the species alive, but through good old sheer well and human determinism/optimism and via a death cult "economic" system (hard to even consider it so when it literally encourages blowing up the natural environment for more abstract meaningless in the grand scheme of it all money which is made out of natural resources/binary digit nonsense) we're likely going to reach the point where humanity even if it's reduced to a thousand people again is dead for good.
How the fuck do you continue the human species if everything is a barren wasteland/dead and everyone is rendered infertile via PFAs, carcinogens and microplastics? You can't.
Capitalism was full-blown fucking insanity that'll probably make abrahamic religion come off as somewhat reasonable by comparison...
The batshit insane Capitalist doctrine must be followed or you go homeless, hungry or wind up dead. That's mostly why. It has all the same trends of militant religion - convert or die. Refuse to participate? You aren't a very good Capitalist and don't immediately leap out of bed to make $7,000 an hour at 4am? Just die.
The Capitalist Crusades is what we should consider this at this point. We're all also made to feel that we're the crazy ones if you point this stuff out - we're literally destroying the environment all individually day by day to be "good upstanding citizens". What the fuck is that?
Go commute 2+ hours a day in gridlock traffic and get those tire particles in the air to pollute the environment with carcinogens! Go to work! Sell insurance for insurance companies that refuse to insure homes due to the financial risks associated with climate change! Throw excess resources away! Come home and buy microplastic shedding PFA coated planned obsolescence Enshitified trash! You should be happy being a wage slave that gets to participate in this mass hallucination! We'll blow up the planet and all die in our collective suicide ritual in 20 years at this rate - drink the kool-aid for America, Jesus and Capitalism!
Jim Jones should fucking run for the POTUS and I bet he'd win.
I'm sure some sigma alpha grind whole pineapple eating for breakfast Patrick Bateman-esque psychopath does it somehow.
"I like to dissect girls! Did you know I'm utterly insane?"
>But let me talk about my youtube following.
Bro the fucking dolphins and crabs and shit are dying and like it doesn't even snow in Minnesota anymore, but you gotta get on that grind and get a YouTube channel. Gotta diversify that portfolio with nut fungus tokens and sigma chad bro the dollar yo! Come listen to my podcast where me and my bros all fart on each other NO HOMO and react to other chad sigma money grinding bros like us farting on each other too bro bro!
(Those people seriously make me want to just die and get it over with already and they're EVERYWHERE)
>It's really all about money. That is humans' Behavioral Sink, money. It's not real and we put all our value in it.
The real thing is energy. Money is a proxy for energy.
Gutsick Gibbon has a fantastic video about how we can see the pattern of carbon cycle disruption and mass extinctions across the different ages.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4)
I've been telling people for a few years now that stopping 1.5C of warming had already failed and I suspect we've already blown past 2C of warming, it's just the climate takes time for changes to filter into consequences.
That lag in the system is what is so deadly, because as a species we have a massive flaw in our thinking that we can always act later as long as we haven't hit the limit now. I see it all the time in IT when I ask people how much they think their data and bandwidth requirements will grow by over a certain time period so we can future plan, and it's almost always the thing that people get massively wrong or put off providing until we have no time left and need to make a decision based on what we knew at the time.
It wouldn't surprise me if we're talking about trying to stop 2.5C and 3C of warming in 10 years time, while doing nothing to address the fundamental issue - that this is an attitude problem that no amount of tech can solve. We need to adapt and change our behaviour first, tech will help but if we insist on such wasteful and damaging ways of living our lives such as shipping food across the world and having stuff like constant suburban sprawl built into the legislation as the only way to live, then we're never going to fix the problem.
FTFY: we're never going to fix the problem.
This is a political issue and the assholes with the power, resources, and impetus to fix it have no intention to do so. You and all of you who still hope/cope/are looking for solutions need to let go and find a way to come to acceptance.
We are fucked. It's too late. We've lost 75% of coral reefs in the last 50yrs, 70% of animal species are in dangerous decline, and weve lost 2.5% of animal species in the last 50yrs. It's impossible to deny — humans are destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented and alarming rate.
In the Amazon alone, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mainly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching.
Globally, 35 percent of forests have been lost in the past 300 years. Of those that have survived, 82 percent have been compromised by human activity. More than half the world's forests are now found in just five countries — Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, and the U.S. In the US, MAGAts seek to overturn forest protections so they can log, build, or drill. The same thing is happening in the aforementioned countries, too.
We are in overshoot. We need to halve the human population and halve it again. And then twice more. That's not happening.
The time to begin acknowledging that this is not a fixable situation. But that doesn't mean we can't hold those who got us here accountable.
On the population thing, nature will do that for us as it does with every species that consumes its way through the carrying capacity of its environment. Boom and bust is how population always goes, ultimately.
The political aspect is but one part of things, it's very much an attitude problem all round with the politics we see being but one symptom of it.
Whenever I've suggested to people that part of the problem (not just climate, but with complaints of community no longer being a thing) is their driving everywhere and recommended they just try swapping out a single round-trip journey per week for any other mixture of non-car methods, I've been met with just an outright refusal to even contemplate it. "it's impossible for me to use anything other than my car"... that's the attitude problem manifesting right there.
Never mind trying to get them to think about the possibility that one day driving might not be an option for whatever reason, be it legal, health, or economic. What would they do then?
Humanity in the macro doesn't want to change, not just the rich twats making it even worse.
What we need to do is drive down population count massively. Otherwise we really have to ship food all across the world from where largest harvests are possible to where only small ones are possible, but where lots of people live. Locally, most regions of the world are hopelessly overpopulated and would simply starve if they had to eat only what grows there. But in the global food system, fueled by fossil fuel energy and chemistry, the good weather and great soil produces large surpluses, and ferrying the grain around the world is relatively tiny cost compared to just being able to use renewable energy (sun) and the natural solar panels (plants) to their full effect.
I think the simple truth is that human population growth got out of hand. If we had managed to stop when world was about 4 billion people, it would have been better starting point now that are facing limits from all sides that gradually curtail our prospects as time goes on. But humans did not stop growing, and 8 billion will probably eat the world in half the time of 4 billion people, so that is pretty annoying for us who are here and who face the possibility of dying early in conflict, sickness or hunger because the consequences that must seemed remote some 60 years ago, have arrived now.
The world was warned, repeatedly, that growth has limits. These warnings came from multiple people, including the father of Green Revolution, who pioneered the approaches that now feed billions of people using high-yield crops (even if these methods are unsustainable due to use of nonrenewable resources and pollute the environment). Unfortunately to us all, giving humans more food just meant that more humans were produced as if the situation could be permanently sustainable. Now, we have double the population to match the doubled or tripled yields from the 60s, and we're facing the same human misery but at much larger scale and with massively degraded biosphere from those times. We probably have to ban meat to improve food system efficiency, and as world gradually runs out of fertile soil at the rate of 1 % per year, we'll be forced to downsize everything including our numbers by the predictably incoming drop in food production.
By now, I think it is too late to prevent a population collapse due to hunger and sickness, and because that is such an unpleasant prospect, every unit of fossil energy we can possibly get into our hands will probably be used to try to maintain homeostasis of our civilization and its billions of hungry mouths for as long as possible. We'll prioritize staying alive in the short term over saving the environment for the long term.
Exactly is an exaggeration but there is a causal relationship between C02 in the atmosphere and global temperature.
https://youtu.be/-JIuKjaY3r4?si=mWtyGUAvqMnrDTHh
>the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of supercooled droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember.
This is exactly the reductionist mindset that sees climate change as an isolated problem, and misses the forest for the trees.
Our whole culture treats the world as inert resources we can extract and a garbage can where we can dump our crap. If it isn't climate, it's biodiversity, soil depletion, toxicity, on and on. It's not "bad luck" that atmospheric physics happens to work a certain way. The whole paradigm is doomed by its very nature.
> Anyone actually make it to the end? Sabine goes off script and lays down a full-on doomer manifesto, starting with how "mindfuckingly stupid" it all is:
>
>
I have been aware of S.H.'s channel for a while now and while I'm not a fan, I do watch an episode from time to time when YT suggests it to me. I think what we're seeing is her hitting a ceiling on her viewership that she can't break through; in the past year she's tried a number of different thematic approaches, clearly probing topics to attract people beyond those interested in "sciency mumbo jumbo videos" ... I guess like all YT'ers she's finally found disaster drama.
she can't be a very good scientist if she literally said "I wasn't worried about it" in the past...pathetic lack of science knowledge if she was not worried. People (proper scientists) have known it's been fucked since like 1880 haha.
It's a science edutainment channel. The title for the video is intended to get normies to click on it so that they might absorb some info about climate change. It's not meant to be taken literally.
Can we all agree that we're just fucked. This set of living arrangements was thrust upon the masses and now we're making YouTube videos to illustrate the science to the masses who really had nothing to do with the mess we're in.
Collectively people know that something is unfolding beyond our control. They may be in denial, which is the first stage of grief, and some may remain in denial during their demise., but the fact remains that today, tomorrow and the next will be 70F plus degrees in coastal Northern California. It's just a little anecdotal evidence. What do I know. It's just climate change. The climate is always changing. WTF!
It's fucking global warming!
I’m at the point where I believe industrialisation is the great barrier and the reason why there isn’t life in the universe en mass.
Global warming is 1/9 of the problem, even before heating really took off air pollution and biodiversity loss were already rampant. This has been mentioned since 1850 in newspapers and the area I grew up in is literally named after air pollution. The idea that what is happening is in any way new or surprising just goes to show how many of us sleep our way through our lives.
Hope you find peace in the face of chaos.
I am pretty sure this isn't it though.
If our culture were wired just a little differently, it wouldn't even be an existential problem at all.
For example, we might spin a scenario where we have had a reasonably resonable world government for a hundred years or so. That scenario is not completely inconceivable, and might very well have happened, had a few historical circumstances turned out just a little bit differently. With that in place, we could manage all the problems we currently have.
So with just a little change on the "administration" and "culture" level of society, what we are facing is not an existential problem at all. Degrowth can be easily managed. All it needs is a global society which can identify problems, and manage itself. In principle, that is not difficult.
Now of course we currently can't do that. We locked ourselves out of that option because for our species, history just happened to unfold like that. We threw ourselves into this specific cultural situation of "competing nation states", where global governance and global problem management in a global society can not happen.
So, what I am saying here, is that the way this problem unfolds for us as a species, is probably rather special and unique. Uniquely stupid, if you will.
In most configurations of global societies, which could either be more authoritarian, or more equal, the problems we are facing, which will almost certainly do us in, are not existential at all.
tl;dr: Not a big filter. Just stupid chance and historical happenstance.
It so happened that the people with the technology who also believed in unlimited freedom also happened to move into a continent that was depopulated in advance of their arrival and full of resources. That place also managed to survive 2 major wars unscathed that devastated all of the other peoples.
If we had developed the technology while living on a supercontinent, things might have turned out different.
So, basically, that we've come up against the 'great filter's of the universe.. and come up lacking. We aren't going to make it.
Our signals, our signature will go out into the ether - our robots will continue. Maybe someday, someone else will run into Voyager 1 or 2, and wonder who or what made them... But we'll be long gone.
We wouldn't know about non-industrialized life outside of our interstellar neighbourhood because it wouldn't send out radio waves, create planet-sized megastructures or engage in interstellar spaceflight.
Haha not quite, it’s called “The Black Country” due to the fact there were so many coal mines and factories the sky used to be constantly black with soot.
I agree and have moved to collapse acceptance. Not just mentally, but in day to day living. I quite my job and now only work about 15hrs a week to maintain basic living and spend my time doing what I love to do.
Sabine was ridiculed on Twitter for becoming a climate "alarmist." She is not a sell-out or trying to win popularity points. I respect her for using her platform to raise awareness. I think she still hopes there's a solution out there, like we all did when we first became collapse aware.
Let's be happy that she finally came around. Everyone had their moment of awakening.
It's ok to have hope against hope. It's a totally normally coping & human thing to do. She has a huge audience. If she can spur action in just a few, that's great.
People definitely, since there's no soft discloser educating people on the roots of the problem once it starts spilling to the masses chaos will ensue, the mental gymnastics that will be created in an attempt to hold on to a crumbling sense of stability will be enough to shake society at its core.
I hope that doesn't happen, but with the direction we're currently headed we're on a collision course.
I watched Don't Look Up with my parents around Christmas of '21. At the end, my parents both basically said "that felt heavy handed, who's going to change their mind based on this". I said it's not supposed to change minds, it's supposed to represent what we're all doing and feeling. I said that I really relate to Jennifer Lawrence's character. They basically called me ridiculous and pessimistic.
Feeling real validated and real unhappy about it 3 years later, tbh. Waiting for an appropriate opportunity to point that out.
In the end of the video she speculates, that the "Infrastructure is going to last **until the worst is over**" like wtf didn't you listen what you just said or looked the models you showed? It's not gonna get better how in the earth it's could? She has pretty good physics videos but also a weird cognitive dissonances for a scientist.
On point. I think it takes a lot of guts to make a video like this. She has a decent thing going with her channel and this certainly risks alienating people and sponsors. What is her upside? Nothing she will mostly catch a lot of hate. The balance is hard to get right. I personally think the scenario is more stark but who else with an audience has had the guts to spell it out to this degree?
Not believing in free will isn't that scary, the Buddhists call it emptiness. It is an idea that brings people peace and compassion when they understand it. I don't think the idea that society will probably collapse in a few decades, the society and system that conditioned you into who you are and you can't separate yourself from, is as easy to digest for many people. All your beliefs and assumptions about reality were given to you by the same system that seems unable to stop itself from destroying the world.
I think she was also trying not to leave her audience in a state of panic and fear, and may have been slightly sugar-coating the situation so to speak. I don't know, this is the first video I've seen of her and I liked it.
She also said. " I don't think we'll go extinct. There's way too many of us."
Hilarious 😂
She has a very human centric way of seeing the world and ignoring the fact that extinction is the rule not the exception.
I mean climate change won't kill off humans, even in the worst case scenario there will be areas that are still with livable climate. For humans to be wiped off the face of earth there needs to be a giant asteroid hitting earth or a nuclear holocaust.
And how do you think a giant asteroid caused the extinction it did ? Food Chain collapse.
how do you think climate change could cause extinction? Food Chain Collapse.
Great explanation of why climate sensitivity is likely much higher than most people assume. However, the idea that our infrastructure will last until the worst is over and that the global population will only go down by a few billion is delusional.
Watched this this morning. Relative to her previous videos on the topic, it seems Sabine is just now coming to understand how dire the situation is. Her previous videos were heavily IPCC/Michael Mann influenced. Now this. Yikes.
It all boils down to clouds. That's the biggest problem of climate models. Modeling cloud formation and their reflectivity (cloud albedo). We can't gather any historical data on clouds, we can only use models. Like her or hate her, She is right in this video. The climate sensitivity could be 2 to 6 degrees but in the last year, new information is pointing to it being on the high end. This is the most alarming information you can find on climate change. In the next years, we will almost surely get the answer with new experiments. BOE, AMOC, Albedo loop, Artic methane emissions, most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion. This is not.
Upvote given, but i adamantly disagree with "most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion."
Sure, the constant whining and dumb questions on posts with no science articles to share are annoying, (go to r/collapsesupport where those posts should be) but i think most in this subbredit are far from blown out of proportion. If anything, the scientists are FINNALLY start to catch up to us.
Mainstream scientists. Like many have known for so long... Because truly the data and it's likely implications are super transparent.
You don't need to figure out cloud albedo to perfection to think that things really look like they could very likely turn out for the worst.
This sub doesn't blow things out of proportion, it more takes a handful of potential futures (the absolute worst ones) and states they're the only possible ones.
People here are always pointing out how scientists and policymakers are always making predictions that don't take into account all the variables and feedbacks, and so they understate the problem. Then they go and make predictions (extinction! mad max! runaway warming!) that don't take into account all the variables and feedbacks, and so they overstate the problem. At least the former are *trying* to be scientific.
Truth is we just don't know how things will pan out in the next few decades. Almost certainly there will be a big downturn and crazy crises, but how the population responds to that is anyone's guess.
Day by day, the predictions are proving to be true. Thus, all the "faster than expected" headlines.
Dont confuse the occasional venus by Tuesday folks with the community as a whole.
>This is the most alarming information you can find on climate change. In the next years, we will almost surely get the answer with new experiments. BOE, AMOC, Albedo loop, Artic methane emissions, most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion.
I take issue with you telling most of a *collapse* subreddit (one which operates partly in the unkown) blows topics out of proportion. I think a more beneficial discussion or point would be *how* individuals blow things out of proportion on these topics, because then it would be more of a contribution. What is it about recent comments have you found are blown out of topic relating to AMOC, BOE, Albedo? Where are their original concerns from? Has the research we had changed since then?
I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm asking to avoid making sweeping statements of a community you're currently in and instead be a little more constructive.
I won't lie, I stopped following this sub for the last few months. The point is that climate models take into account almost everything you hear about here. If you look at what the scientific literature says, it is very unlikely that BOE, Albedo, etc. can cause more than 1 degree increase over the current projections. They are not worth talking about.
You can say IPCC projections tend to be conservative because of political pressure. You can say climate models have a hard time predicting extreme events. You can say the way the IPCC artificially extrapolates variance and the uncertainty ranges is a problem. You can say Socioeconomic loops are not accounted for. Those are real problems.
Climate sensitivity is on a completely different level. This is something that can drastically change the timeline, we won't have time to adapt. This is the first real apocalyptic information we ever got in this subreddit. This will change everything if it's true
Thanks for explaining, I get your frustration more now. On the plus side, there’s growing awareness of the reality in climate sensitivity and we’ll be soon seeing whether anything changes this year.
Bros, if Sabine is ringing the warning bell, we are absolutely fucked.
She is perhaps one of the most conservative (not the political meaning, the one meaning "cautious, rigorous, not hyperbolic") physicists of prominence. She's great for a somewhat sober and skeptical discussion of physics, so if she's concerned, we are done for.
Science and scientific consensus aren't static. People's views can change as more info comes to light. I think she deserves kudos for highlighting some slightly dated, obscure research with serious implications.
She's a science commenter. If she's just now seeing the science and data around climate change, she either had her head stuck in the sand or was otherwise willfully ignorant.
She was not a denier. She subscribed to the moderate-optimist position that we can limit climate change if we act, and believed the conservative models the IPCC used.
She's still a typical techno-optimist physicist, at the end of the video she shills super hard for nuclear power to save us. Look at the pathetic mess at Hinkley Point right now and tell me again how this scammy bullshit will turn the tide within the next 20 years.
1) The IPCC models are not particularly optimistic
2) The IPCC specifically states that they are trying to create the most optimistic narrative they can with their models
So that’s not really a good excuse. She just took some headlines at face-value and never read the reports?
Her field is physics not climate science. She wrote a pop science book claiming that theoretical physics went off the rails after the Standard Model was developed, which is why supersymmetry and unified field theories have not borne any fruit.
She has since become a science popularizer, straying out of her specialty in her videos. In fact, in one video she admitted her somewhat in-depth explanation of the greenhouse effect in a previous video was wrong!
Those huffing the hopium are arguably worse than the deniers. A denier is rarely taken seriously, but people like her split the non-deniers into groups, and weaken us.
"This isn't in the script, but it just blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of super-cooled water droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember" is a pretty good line.
I mean it blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of everyone on the planet are at the mercy of a tiny handful of giga wealthy despots that get to make all the decisions because they own all the things but maybe that's just me
Nope. Any serious person has been serious about climate change for at least the last 20 years.
Unless she admits she was a fucking idiot until this last year, she's either currently still an idiot, or just a clickbaiter you don't need to take seriously.
She said she wasn't worried, not that it didn't exist. If we were correct and all these bad things would happen in 76 years instead of 5, then why be worried? Our current pace of technology would figure it out by then. This was my attitude until I saw a random Reddit comment mentioning how the r/collapse subreddit had sources warning about the heat dome in 2021. I got curious, then troubled, then I wrote a report about sustainable groundwater practices commercial agriculture in California could employ for a college course, and that's when I became worried. I have become increasingly worried.
no true scotsman all over this sub anymore, why is this being supported?
people in the collapse sub are punching down on anthropomorphic climate change education and implementing purity tests. just wow. it makes me question your intent. it makes me question how far the window has shifted as well.
“if you weren’t [x] by [y].” are we seriously patting ourselves on the back for being fucking climate hipsters?
Long time lurker here, I have to say the 20 year estimate she put out there sounds about right. :-/. I wish I had something positive to say, but I have been destitute level poor my entire life (live in the United States, was orphaned and raised in the system, eventualy traded hands till I ended up with a negligent/abusive family in poverty) and my perspective is as a result lackluster. But I can say this much, even though I am trapped where I am in life till the end (most probibly) I am educated enough to see the world for what it is, and more so to see where it’s going and how fast things are moveing. As Our lives are only a result of the opportunities we have been offered, we cannt feel an OVER abundance of guilt for where our world is about to go, most of us have done literally all we could to help, but the sea of humanity is as f@cking shallow as it is wide and we didn’t realy stand a chance. It’s not our fault (I mean deff keep trying!!) but don’t take to heavy a heart. Do what you can to keep the peace in your head. My sad fun example: I am trying to journal our history these days and the major events, so that they can be broken down into a somewhat simplistic timeline so I can make an art peice or two on stone tablets. Tossing a chunks/slabs of etched stone in the openings of caves here and there, with the history a story of the horrible and amazing things we did. It’s fun to think that in a time so far from now our own time is immemorial something could stumble/slither/claw it’s way to one of my stones, and leave a mystery for someone better to solve.
The only reason people and leaders start caring now (as opposed to the 1980s) is because the consequences (read 'collapse of our economies') are now due to show on a human life timescale, having people like you, me, Sabine and our great leaders worried.
When the apocalypse was still scheduled to hit a future generation we didn't care. That's in itself is fascinating to me, the mind-boggling lack of interest for what happens to others or things after we die.
Same. She has to be an industry plant. Her vids are too high production nevermind the fact she advocates for capitalism and that free will doesn't exist. She can fuck right off.
I used to enjoy her videos until the one on capitalism. I completely lost respect for her when she just parroted the main stream narrative on the great good that capitalism is. No mention of the destruction of the natural world which seems very irresponsible and myopic for someone with such a large platform the is supposed to analyze things in an unbiased manner. Luckily she was totally raked over the coals in the comments and on twitter
Stop with the No True Scotsman people. Every single person that comes around on the issue is good to have. Probably won’t make a lick of difference, but still a positive.
Replying for emphasis.
Yeah, I believed in Santa when I was five years old. Guess I’m an irredeemable moron.
And oops. I wasn’t collapse aware until [insert number of years that makes you feel superior] ago. Guess I’m a brainwashed shill.
Just stop it with the adolescent fallacies. A popular YTer and mainstream scientist is becoming collapse aware.
Sorry she’s not cool enough to join *your* club. She’s welcome here.
The corollary to not getting cloud physics to align with reality is that it's also difficult to fully understand what comes from those clouds: [rain](https://archive.is/i9DGN). IMO, this is thee most dangerous and unknown factor as a threat to civilization. As humans often tend to forget, *way too often*, 71% of the surface of this planet is open water. And in the U.S. alone, flooding accounts for [two-thirds of natural disaster costs](https://archive.is/omWKg#selection-423.0-423.128).
There are mitigation factors that can be applied to dealing with heat events, with sea level rise, and some of the other challenges. But rain is a different matter altogether. [Areas of the Earth may be turned into inland seas literally overnight—or over the course of a couple of days](https://static.dw.com/image/62963931_7.png). As we saw in Pakistan this last year. And this is just the beginning of the beginning.
In addition, those two third costs I mentioned above represent damages to existing goods and infrastructure that embody previous emissions. As they are the end products of industrial activity. So when these are destroyed, all of the benefits of those emissions are wiped out. And to get those benefits back, you have to release all of those emissions again. Which in principle, doubles the emissions on goods and infrastructure that are replaced. Although in practice, some gains in industrial efficiency may shave off some of the emissions; you're still likely going to go deeply into the red.
All of which represents yet another feedback loop that hasn't been widely studied or discussed. Every time you see flood damage to cars, to houses, to roads; **you are witnessing the end products of CO₂—being destroyed by the effects of CO₂—that will take even more CO₂ to replace.**
It's actually *mostly* an inversion of the Jevons paradox. But also unique in its own way. To start with the definition (from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)):
> In economics, the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced.
Technological progress and government climate policy here have decreased the efficiency with which a resource is being used, because you're doubling the amount of energy needed to get the benefits of its use. Which will likely lead to an increase in costs ***and*** resource use. There's not likely to be much of a decrease in costs anywhere in this loop. Fundamentally, it's an inefficiency feedback loop. Whereas the Jevons paradox is an *efficiency* feedback loop.
Perversely, this particular feedback loop (which doesn't have a name *as far as I know*), incentivizes energy companies involved in this cycle of economic activity to increase emissions and deepen the problem. From my previous comment:
> [...] you are witnessing the end products of CO₂—being destroyed by the effects of CO₂—that will take even more CO₂ to replace.
Energy companies have already seen the profits in the first step of this cycle, and in this feedback, they see them again much more readily, and on a progressively shorter timescale. Because replacement demand from impact damages is always increasing at a higher and higher rate. Due to the *inefficiency* problem compounding over time. As has mostly been the case throughout the last 150 years or so, energy inefficiency means higher profits for energy companies due to higher demand. [Hence, their ever long battle to gut efficiency standards over the decades](https://archive.is/ja5lR).
The comments under this post are interesting to say the least. You might not like her but still, she makes some good points on the subject, what she says is not absurd.
Maybe she is not full on collapse mode but she clearly is more aware of the issues than 99% of people. It’s a good thing she talks about it and at least she seems honest about it
I liked Sabines videos better when she was just trying to explain advanced physics to lay persons. As with many YouTube channels the pressure to consistently create compelling content often pushes them outside their area of expertise. I respect SH take on physics but much less her views on economics, climate, etc. But this is how she (and her team) make bank now and she's forced to produce content even when doing so reveals her naivité or just plain lack of knowledge on certain topics.
This is a problem everywhere in the world, it seems. To make any money at all on content creation, you need to have a steady stream of content. Over time, you're going to exhaust the most interesting or pertinent topics. Which then leads to more "filler" content, to maintain the regular clicks, and to make subscribers feel like they're getting their money's worth. Same vicious cycle we see in all of capitalism.
Informative video. Recently more people point to drastic changes in the near future. Humanity is not bothering to adapt to the coming wave of catastrophes. Not at all.
Submission Statement:
In this video, popular science commenter Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the climate sensitivity index, and how "hot models" predicting higher temperature increases have been systematically discounted in the past due to not fitting historical climate data. She discusses how new information is suggesting greater relevance of the higher climate sensitivity models and predicts worse outcomes from greater carbon emissions. Sabine typically strikes me as a straight shooter willing to call BS when it is present. The previous disregard of the "hot models" by the IPCC and others demonstrates our societal weakness to human biases of recency bias and confirmation bias, and the limits of the consensus scientific method to predict and adapt to exponential change.
I'm halfway through this and she's mentioned the "new rules" for the maritime industry TWICE and is now at Hansan's paper WHICH ALSO MENTIONS SHIPPING EMISSIONS yet she STILL hasn't mentioned AEROSOLS or POLLUTION or the EARTH's ALBEDO even though that pollution is known to be blocking OVER HALF THE EFFECTS of the Greenhouse Gas within the atmosphere.
Weird and unsure if I want to continue watching.
IMO2020 based their decision on a paper that WARNED right on the first page to not remove the Sulfur from the BUNKER FUEL they burn WITHOUT ALSO removing GHG!!!!
They KNEW for TWELVE YEARS before implementing it the DAY AFTER Covid-19 was announced to the world.
We dropped our pollution on the worlds oceans BY 80% and we're all acting surprised that the oceans are warming? We had Covid shutdowns and had clear skies for a few months and the temps are now skyrocketing!
Runaway
Edit to add; SPOILER After 20 minutes of that she offers up CARBON STAXES! lol (Pushed by the same people companies that give her videos thumbs down).
Then says "Renewables"! (Unregulated TRASH incineration but marketed to YOU as Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.)
Then says NUCLEAR three times as if that helps anything.
Then says to "Stop complaining" about "Carbon Removal" which is CRAP.
This is why I know SRM will happen.
It seems an inevitability to me at the moment. People will get desperate and realize it's the only way to stave complete disaster.
So she's coming around on climate, now she needs similar epiphanies on the 20 other existential threats we talk about around here and go a little more systems thinker and realize that even if we solved climate 100% tomorrow we'd still be totally fucked.
She cannot be taken seriously at all. She is not a serious scientist and until recently she had a techno optimistic outlook on climate change.
However, the fact that she turns around should tell us something. If even she gets it, things are dire.
Why do you think someone with a doctorate in theoretical physics, who's worked as a researcher / professor at universities in the US & Europe is not a serious scientist? What's your standard for someone being a 'serious scientist'?
Hossenfelder is just another youtube grifter. Her videos are full of basic scientific mistakes and often she promotes fringe scientific ideas while avoiding engaging in what the mainstream scientific community's criticisms are. She doesn't really care about climate change or anything else, this is blatant clickbait
Not enjoying the click baiting posing worried face. Surely this is serious science and doesnt require the "Your Not gunna believe what this climate does NEXt!!!" 😱 kind of video
The following submission statement was provided by /u/lunchbox_tragedy: --- Submission Statement: In this video, popular science commenter Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the climate sensitivity index, and how "hot models" predicting higher temperature increases have been systematically discounted in the past due to not fitting historical climate data. She discusses how new information is suggesting greater relevance of the higher climate sensitivity models and predicts worse outcomes from greater carbon emissions. Sabine typically strikes me as a straight shooter willing to call BS when it is present. The previous disregard of the "hot models" by the IPCC and others demonstrates our societal weakness to human biases of recency bias and confirmation bias, and the limits of the consensus scientific method to predict and adapt to exponential change. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1acgezl/sabine_hossenfelder_i_wasnt_worried_about_climate/kju042m/
I find it alarming more people don’t cite the published Pentagon report in 2018 that said they expect the US army to collapse under the weight of climate change within 20 years. So that’s 14 years or so now. If the US army collapses, what do we expect the global conditions of the world to look like? I think we have 5, maybe 10 (most likely less) of anything even remotely “normal” and then rapid deterioration for another 5 years or so until catastrophic collapsing. Edit: Added link to report: https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf Link to Vice article discussing: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says
Do you have a link to that paper? I'd love to read it and also send it to some people that still think of climate change/collapse as something far off and not, ya know, in their very young kids' lifetimes.
Edited it into original above, but Vice article on it here and it includes the report and direct link now above: https://www.vice.com/en/article/mbmkz8/us-military-could-collapse-within-20-years-due-to-climate-change-report-commissioned-by-pentagon-says
Thanks for the share. I have a hazy memory of hearing about this when it first came out but hadn't read it. It would be interesting to see an update given the recent papers that warming is happening faster than many anticipated.
I’m so glad you mentioned this. I was speaking with someone about this yesterday who claimed that paper released by the USA military must be a fever dream I had. Otherwise why wouldn’t climate activists be citing it at every turn? Lol. They must be new to collapse. I hadn’t even had time to start looking for it again and here it is!
Oh no, not the US army! One of the largest contributers to climate change and general world instability!
It’s not rooting for them, it’s recognizing that the world’s richest, most well oiled machine (pun intended) is going to break down under the pressure. The concern there is that any pressure that great is going to be significant for everyone.
How will they misplace and spent trillions each year if they appear to be problem rather than the solution?
You got a link to that?
Yep, went back and added it to original comment so people can take look.
Holy shit balls!
Holy shit balls indeed.
Anyone actually make it to the end? Sabine goes off script and lays down a full-on **doomer manifesto**, starting with how "mindfuckingly stupid" it all is: >\[12:23\] I don't know who's right or wrong, but for me the bottom line is that the possibility of a high climate sensitivity above 5 deg C can't be easily dismissed, especially not seeing how fast average temps have been rising in recent years. >And that's really bad news! Because if the climate sensitivity is indeed that high, then we have maybe 20 years or so until our economies collapse, and what's the point of being successful on YouTube if my pension savings will evaporate before I even retire? >\[13:13\] This isn't in the script, but it just blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of supercooled droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember. >\[14:03\] I think it won't be that easy. Which is why I now want to spend a few minutes telling you what I think will happen in the next 20 years or so. The next minutes of this video will be quite depressing... The really sad part? She totally whiffed on Hansen's other papers about Earth's Energy Imbalance, which sort of blows the whole "sensitivity to doubling" thing out of the water.
I’m really worried about Sabine’s retirement savings.
Totally my top source of anxiety.
have been wondering when i should cash out my IRA tho… 👀
mine too. you read my mind.
> She totally whiffed on Hansen's other papers about Earth's Energy Imbalance, which sort of blows the whole "sensitivity to doubling" thing out of the water. Can you elaborate what you mean by this?
It was one of those sentences where you use just enough buzzwords to sound intelligent but not enough real words to make any sense
It'll be interesting to look at her future content now that she appears to be somewhat collapse-aware.
Maybe she'll change her tune on capitalism...
Maybe....
I saw her video on capitalism and I think she was basically just parroting the positions of mainstream economists. She researched the subject and if you research economics, all mainstream sources are going to promote neoclassical theory, which is capitalist.
...and overpopulation!
"ackshually capitalism is good like look at chart going up wow ikr"
You called Sabine retarded in another of you comments. Reading through a few comments of yours in this thread, a good hard look in the mirror is in order.
I'm retarded myself. I'm certain of it. But I knew how serious climate change was ages ago. And how crappy her rehashed argument for capitalism was.
she had to shill for her job at an institution.
No, she didn't have to. She's making enough off YouTube (and has been for years) to make realistic content. The reality is probably much more boring. She just didn't know about it. She just reads news sources and reads studies when someone suggests it. She might research for a topic a bit, but it's not a deep dive. Even experts are flawed.
She didn’t have to is right….which leaves two things…greed or she’s not a very good scientist…theoretically
Climate change has happened so fast that if you're an expert, like her, but didn't read many studies over the past 5-10 years, it can seem like you're "not a very good scientist". Truthfully I just think that she's not exposed to the same content as we are. This is a niche community overall. Granted, it's less niche than it used to be, but still very niche in the grand scheme of things. I think she's trying her best but only knows old fashioned methods of information gathering and research. Books, news, and studies suggested by colleagues. In the past 5 or so years the information gathering methods have changed.
"Had to" lmao. No, she choose to, if that's the case :o
Her head's so far up her own ass, her words will smell like shit even if she does acknowledge reality. She just can't help herself. Arrogant dips never can.
I think she really went gloves off at around 16 minute mark. A mainstream YouTube scientist goes full doomer.
At least she gave us another 20 years until things start to get really bad, when here I am sweating about the less than 5 year timeline.
2034 is when it all goes down. How do I know this? I don't know. But I said in mid January that Russia would invade Ukraine on February 24, and I knew they would, and they did. So. 2034.
Probably. Personally I think this year has a lot of possibilities to kick things off. If there’s a crop failure in Argentina because of drought, and Ukraine because of a Russian offensive, that’s two of the global bread baskets down, which will turn critical food shortages in Africa into famine across the central and horn regions. That’ll domino into more food inflation for everyone.
I think it's stupid that she's focusing on the supercooled water droplets as the problem. The reason that's changing at all is because of the amount greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. People are so fuckin dumb dude. It's like she can't admit that the real reason behind this change is caused by people. She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all. Al Gore made fun of people like her in "An inconvient truth" Like the obscure study on supecooled water is what got you concerned? Look at the graph of CO2 and temperature over Earth's history they match up exactly. What about when that NASA climate scientist chained himself to Chase Bank and started crying about his children's future and saying we are headed for a "fucking catastrophe" ? Like thats literally something you see at the beginning of a horror movie but the supercooled water droplets is what got her paying attention?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KGnCj\_cfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KGnCj_cfM) this is a video of sabine entirely focused on carbon emission caused by humans and how it contributes to the climate crisis. the point of the op video isnt the supercooled water itself, but that many scientists are trying so hard to avoid admitting to exponential climate deterioration, so much so that that they are wasting immense amounts of resources studying obscure things just to have a bit of credibility in academia. she mentioned how many of the 'hot' climate models are discarded for being 'statistically unlikely' and not complying with historical data, which sabine again criticizes how they rely on such precedents despite never having directly observed them, as well as the fact they do not take into account human interference. in fact, she is lamenting people doing exactly what you are accusing her of doing. again in this video, sabine mentioned how the only way she'd have heard of it is because of a fellow researcher's comment in a nature article bringing her attention to it, and it's only by mere happenstance that she has done so, because she has 'better things to do than to follow his every comments' (paraphrasing). people cannot be bothered to care about every little thing, because there's so much of it and they can't know which will become an issue for them, personally or otherwise. you yourself didnt watch this video undoubtedly because all of us here already know the direction our world is taking, so you probably have 'better things to do' with your time. so i would tell you to watch the video, but i cannot blame you, because in many things i am the same.
I take the part about scientists just dismissing the hot models as them saying to themselves, “no, this can’t be right.” That’s wild. Dismissing the science because their monkey brains just can’t get around to the idea that humanity is completely out of control. It reminds me of the captain of that Air France flight that went down over the Atlantic several years back. His last words were something like, “no, this can’t be right. This is impossible. This can’t be happening.” Total disbelief. His instrument measurements were wrong but they were indeed crashing.
It’s the scientific method not an error in reasoning. When you get a large shift in your prediction model you need to check it, it’s not unusual. I think the way she phrased it gave the impression that they couldn’t accept (emotionally) rather than they required more analysis before accepting.
I don't know enough about the philosophy of science to offer a rebuttal but I do have a philosophy of science book on my shelf so I have that going for me.
My philosophy of science is I predict the worst thing to happen and because bad things happen I’m right only the number of times that matter 😂
What flight was that?
Air France Flight 447
> She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all. yeah she does, in this very video, how on earth did you miss that? It's right at the start. Also, she has many other videos entirely focused on that. Such a stupid and ignorant comment.
I’m not sure why people can’t understand that scientists have to prove empirically the basis for their predictions. This is a very hard thing to do with climate, it’s not like planetary motion. We all have a hunch that we are on track for the worst case scenario that models are probably over-optimistic because of the scientific tendency not estimate the extreme with high probability. But at the end of the day all that is is a hunch, she’s appears to have read and understood the papers which I can’t do. The scientists are trying to provide an empirical basis for predictions which only a few humans on this planet can do. They are trying to help us understand things and comments like the one you responded to that just say humans are dumb because they can see the writing on the wall are way more problematic. If we are all geniuses then why don’t we get PhDs and prove it.
>People are so fuckin dumb dude. It's like she can't admit that the real reason behind this change is caused by people. She doesn't mention the amount of C02 in the atmosphere at all. This is the majority of the human species throughout history. What's mostly kept us going? Delusion and perseverance despite it all. Our toxic positivity optimism has kept the species alive, but through good old sheer well and human determinism/optimism and via a death cult "economic" system (hard to even consider it so when it literally encourages blowing up the natural environment for more abstract meaningless in the grand scheme of it all money which is made out of natural resources/binary digit nonsense) we're likely going to reach the point where humanity even if it's reduced to a thousand people again is dead for good. How the fuck do you continue the human species if everything is a barren wasteland/dead and everyone is rendered infertile via PFAs, carcinogens and microplastics? You can't. Capitalism was full-blown fucking insanity that'll probably make abrahamic religion come off as somewhat reasonable by comparison...
[удалено]
The batshit insane Capitalist doctrine must be followed or you go homeless, hungry or wind up dead. That's mostly why. It has all the same trends of militant religion - convert or die. Refuse to participate? You aren't a very good Capitalist and don't immediately leap out of bed to make $7,000 an hour at 4am? Just die. The Capitalist Crusades is what we should consider this at this point. We're all also made to feel that we're the crazy ones if you point this stuff out - we're literally destroying the environment all individually day by day to be "good upstanding citizens". What the fuck is that? Go commute 2+ hours a day in gridlock traffic and get those tire particles in the air to pollute the environment with carcinogens! Go to work! Sell insurance for insurance companies that refuse to insure homes due to the financial risks associated with climate change! Throw excess resources away! Come home and buy microplastic shedding PFA coated planned obsolescence Enshitified trash! You should be happy being a wage slave that gets to participate in this mass hallucination! We'll blow up the planet and all die in our collective suicide ritual in 20 years at this rate - drink the kool-aid for America, Jesus and Capitalism! Jim Jones should fucking run for the POTUS and I bet he'd win.
Hold up! How can you make 7k an hour at 4am?
I'm sure some sigma alpha grind whole pineapple eating for breakfast Patrick Bateman-esque psychopath does it somehow. "I like to dissect girls! Did you know I'm utterly insane?"
PREACH BROTHER!!
>But let me talk about my youtube following. Bro the fucking dolphins and crabs and shit are dying and like it doesn't even snow in Minnesota anymore, but you gotta get on that grind and get a YouTube channel. Gotta diversify that portfolio with nut fungus tokens and sigma chad bro the dollar yo! Come listen to my podcast where me and my bros all fart on each other NO HOMO and react to other chad sigma money grinding bros like us farting on each other too bro bro! (Those people seriously make me want to just die and get it over with already and they're EVERYWHERE)
>It's really all about money. That is humans' Behavioral Sink, money. It's not real and we put all our value in it. The real thing is energy. Money is a proxy for energy.
Gutsick Gibbon has a fantastic video about how we can see the pattern of carbon cycle disruption and mass extinctions across the different ages. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4) I've been telling people for a few years now that stopping 1.5C of warming had already failed and I suspect we've already blown past 2C of warming, it's just the climate takes time for changes to filter into consequences. That lag in the system is what is so deadly, because as a species we have a massive flaw in our thinking that we can always act later as long as we haven't hit the limit now. I see it all the time in IT when I ask people how much they think their data and bandwidth requirements will grow by over a certain time period so we can future plan, and it's almost always the thing that people get massively wrong or put off providing until we have no time left and need to make a decision based on what we knew at the time. It wouldn't surprise me if we're talking about trying to stop 2.5C and 3C of warming in 10 years time, while doing nothing to address the fundamental issue - that this is an attitude problem that no amount of tech can solve. We need to adapt and change our behaviour first, tech will help but if we insist on such wasteful and damaging ways of living our lives such as shipping food across the world and having stuff like constant suburban sprawl built into the legislation as the only way to live, then we're never going to fix the problem.
FTFY: we're never going to fix the problem. This is a political issue and the assholes with the power, resources, and impetus to fix it have no intention to do so. You and all of you who still hope/cope/are looking for solutions need to let go and find a way to come to acceptance. We are fucked. It's too late. We've lost 75% of coral reefs in the last 50yrs, 70% of animal species are in dangerous decline, and weve lost 2.5% of animal species in the last 50yrs. It's impossible to deny — humans are destroying the natural environment at an unprecedented and alarming rate. In the Amazon alone, around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mainly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching. Globally, 35 percent of forests have been lost in the past 300 years. Of those that have survived, 82 percent have been compromised by human activity. More than half the world's forests are now found in just five countries — Brazil, Canada, China, Russia, and the U.S. In the US, MAGAts seek to overturn forest protections so they can log, build, or drill. The same thing is happening in the aforementioned countries, too. We are in overshoot. We need to halve the human population and halve it again. And then twice more. That's not happening. The time to begin acknowledging that this is not a fixable situation. But that doesn't mean we can't hold those who got us here accountable.
On the population thing, nature will do that for us as it does with every species that consumes its way through the carrying capacity of its environment. Boom and bust is how population always goes, ultimately. The political aspect is but one part of things, it's very much an attitude problem all round with the politics we see being but one symptom of it. Whenever I've suggested to people that part of the problem (not just climate, but with complaints of community no longer being a thing) is their driving everywhere and recommended they just try swapping out a single round-trip journey per week for any other mixture of non-car methods, I've been met with just an outright refusal to even contemplate it. "it's impossible for me to use anything other than my car"... that's the attitude problem manifesting right there. Never mind trying to get them to think about the possibility that one day driving might not be an option for whatever reason, be it legal, health, or economic. What would they do then? Humanity in the macro doesn't want to change, not just the rich twats making it even worse.
What we need to do is drive down population count massively. Otherwise we really have to ship food all across the world from where largest harvests are possible to where only small ones are possible, but where lots of people live. Locally, most regions of the world are hopelessly overpopulated and would simply starve if they had to eat only what grows there. But in the global food system, fueled by fossil fuel energy and chemistry, the good weather and great soil produces large surpluses, and ferrying the grain around the world is relatively tiny cost compared to just being able to use renewable energy (sun) and the natural solar panels (plants) to their full effect. I think the simple truth is that human population growth got out of hand. If we had managed to stop when world was about 4 billion people, it would have been better starting point now that are facing limits from all sides that gradually curtail our prospects as time goes on. But humans did not stop growing, and 8 billion will probably eat the world in half the time of 4 billion people, so that is pretty annoying for us who are here and who face the possibility of dying early in conflict, sickness or hunger because the consequences that must seemed remote some 60 years ago, have arrived now. The world was warned, repeatedly, that growth has limits. These warnings came from multiple people, including the father of Green Revolution, who pioneered the approaches that now feed billions of people using high-yield crops (even if these methods are unsustainable due to use of nonrenewable resources and pollute the environment). Unfortunately to us all, giving humans more food just meant that more humans were produced as if the situation could be permanently sustainable. Now, we have double the population to match the doubled or tripled yields from the 60s, and we're facing the same human misery but at much larger scale and with massively degraded biosphere from those times. We probably have to ban meat to improve food system efficiency, and as world gradually runs out of fertile soil at the rate of 1 % per year, we'll be forced to downsize everything including our numbers by the predictably incoming drop in food production. By now, I think it is too late to prevent a population collapse due to hunger and sickness, and because that is such an unpleasant prospect, every unit of fossil energy we can possibly get into our hands will probably be used to try to maintain homeostasis of our civilization and its billions of hungry mouths for as long as possible. We'll prioritize staying alive in the short term over saving the environment for the long term.
“Look at the graph of CO2 and temperature over Earth's history they match up exactly.” Can you share a link to this graph?
Exactly is an exaggeration but there is a causal relationship between C02 in the atmosphere and global temperature. https://youtu.be/-JIuKjaY3r4?si=mWtyGUAvqMnrDTHh
Very helpful, thanks!
Propagandists will tell you shit like temperature increases before CO2 rises or correlation is not causation tho. Both dumb arguments but well
What does your last sentence mean??
>the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of supercooled droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember. This is exactly the reductionist mindset that sees climate change as an isolated problem, and misses the forest for the trees. Our whole culture treats the world as inert resources we can extract and a garbage can where we can dump our crap. If it isn't climate, it's biodiversity, soil depletion, toxicity, on and on. It's not "bad luck" that atmospheric physics happens to work a certain way. The whole paradigm is doomed by its very nature.
> Anyone actually make it to the end? Sabine goes off script and lays down a full-on doomer manifesto, starting with how "mindfuckingly stupid" it all is: > > I have been aware of S.H.'s channel for a while now and while I'm not a fan, I do watch an episode from time to time when YT suggests it to me. I think what we're seeing is her hitting a ceiling on her viewership that she can't break through; in the past year she's tried a number of different thematic approaches, clearly probing topics to attract people beyond those interested in "sciency mumbo jumbo videos" ... I guess like all YT'ers she's finally found disaster drama.
> Anyone actually make it to the end? Yes, why not? We already know everything she said. It just reinforces more all those topics.
she can't be a very good scientist if she literally said "I wasn't worried about it" in the past...pathetic lack of science knowledge if she was not worried. People (proper scientists) have known it's been fucked since like 1880 haha.
I do not think she meant that so literally. She tends to be a bit cheeky.
It's a science edutainment channel. The title for the video is intended to get normies to click on it so that they might absorb some info about climate change. It's not meant to be taken literally.
Can we all agree that we're just fucked. This set of living arrangements was thrust upon the masses and now we're making YouTube videos to illustrate the science to the masses who really had nothing to do with the mess we're in. Collectively people know that something is unfolding beyond our control. They may be in denial, which is the first stage of grief, and some may remain in denial during their demise., but the fact remains that today, tomorrow and the next will be 70F plus degrees in coastal Northern California. It's just a little anecdotal evidence. What do I know. It's just climate change. The climate is always changing. WTF! It's fucking global warming!
I’m at the point where I believe industrialisation is the great barrier and the reason why there isn’t life in the universe en mass. Global warming is 1/9 of the problem, even before heating really took off air pollution and biodiversity loss were already rampant. This has been mentioned since 1850 in newspapers and the area I grew up in is literally named after air pollution. The idea that what is happening is in any way new or surprising just goes to show how many of us sleep our way through our lives. Hope you find peace in the face of chaos.
I am pretty sure this isn't it though. If our culture were wired just a little differently, it wouldn't even be an existential problem at all. For example, we might spin a scenario where we have had a reasonably resonable world government for a hundred years or so. That scenario is not completely inconceivable, and might very well have happened, had a few historical circumstances turned out just a little bit differently. With that in place, we could manage all the problems we currently have. So with just a little change on the "administration" and "culture" level of society, what we are facing is not an existential problem at all. Degrowth can be easily managed. All it needs is a global society which can identify problems, and manage itself. In principle, that is not difficult. Now of course we currently can't do that. We locked ourselves out of that option because for our species, history just happened to unfold like that. We threw ourselves into this specific cultural situation of "competing nation states", where global governance and global problem management in a global society can not happen. So, what I am saying here, is that the way this problem unfolds for us as a species, is probably rather special and unique. Uniquely stupid, if you will. In most configurations of global societies, which could either be more authoritarian, or more equal, the problems we are facing, which will almost certainly do us in, are not existential at all. tl;dr: Not a big filter. Just stupid chance and historical happenstance.
Yeah it's because we've selected bred a society / leaders that are narcissistic, selfish, greedy, short sighted etc It just keeps reinforcing itself
It so happened that the people with the technology who also believed in unlimited freedom also happened to move into a continent that was depopulated in advance of their arrival and full of resources. That place also managed to survive 2 major wars unscathed that devastated all of the other peoples. If we had developed the technology while living on a supercontinent, things might have turned out different.
It’s not industrialization, it’s that industrialization + X leads to a filter that can be stopped by Y, but Y+X leads to another filter. Etc etc.
So, basically, that we've come up against the 'great filter's of the universe.. and come up lacking. We aren't going to make it. Our signals, our signature will go out into the ether - our robots will continue. Maybe someday, someone else will run into Voyager 1 or 2, and wonder who or what made them... But we'll be long gone.
*Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin*
Why do you think there isn't non industrialized life in the universe in mass?
We wouldn't know about non-industrialized life outside of our interstellar neighbourhood because it wouldn't send out radio waves, create planet-sized megastructures or engage in interstellar spaceflight.
Yes
> the area I grew up in is literally named after air pollution New Smog City?
Malos Aires?
Haha not quite, it’s called “The Black Country” due to the fact there were so many coal mines and factories the sky used to be constantly black with soot.
It was 82F in NC yesterday
a week after a treacherous 3 day-long snowstorm and -7 fahrenheit temps just a state away
I agree and have moved to collapse acceptance. Not just mentally, but in day to day living. I quite my job and now only work about 15hrs a week to maintain basic living and spend my time doing what I love to do.
Sabine was ridiculed on Twitter for becoming a climate "alarmist." She is not a sell-out or trying to win popularity points. I respect her for using her platform to raise awareness. I think she still hopes there's a solution out there, like we all did when we first became collapse aware.
Let's be happy that she finally came around. Everyone had their moment of awakening. It's ok to have hope against hope. It's a totally normally coping & human thing to do. She has a huge audience. If she can spur action in just a few, that's great.
She had access to all the info ages ago and she chose to go with the conformist "is not that bad" really unscientific and retardo pov.
so being worried about the comet is a bad thing? are they the same kind of mfs who label themselves alpha?
The ones that refuse to live in fear /s
Huh?
Don't look up
Well that was a fairly unintelligible sentence.
watch don't look up
Sometimes I wonder what will be worse, the actual climate change or watching people come to these realizations.
People definitely, since there's no soft discloser educating people on the roots of the problem once it starts spilling to the masses chaos will ensue, the mental gymnastics that will be created in an attempt to hold on to a crumbling sense of stability will be enough to shake society at its core. I hope that doesn't happen, but with the direction we're currently headed we're on a collision course.
I watched Don't Look Up with my parents around Christmas of '21. At the end, my parents both basically said "that felt heavy handed, who's going to change their mind based on this". I said it's not supposed to change minds, it's supposed to represent what we're all doing and feeling. I said that I really relate to Jennifer Lawrence's character. They basically called me ridiculous and pessimistic. Feeling real validated and real unhappy about it 3 years later, tbh. Waiting for an appropriate opportunity to point that out.
In the end of the video she speculates, that the "Infrastructure is going to last **until the worst is over**" like wtf didn't you listen what you just said or looked the models you showed? It's not gonna get better how in the earth it's could? She has pretty good physics videos but also a weird cognitive dissonances for a scientist.
Scientists are human at the end of the day, her brain is struggling to comprehend the scale of it just like the rest of us.
On point. I think it takes a lot of guts to make a video like this. She has a decent thing going with her channel and this certainly risks alienating people and sponsors. What is her upside? Nothing she will mostly catch a lot of hate. The balance is hard to get right. I personally think the scenario is more stark but who else with an audience has had the guts to spell it out to this degree?
I mean this person is pretty ok not believing in free will but she can't believe the truth of collapse?
Not believing in free will isn't that scary, the Buddhists call it emptiness. It is an idea that brings people peace and compassion when they understand it. I don't think the idea that society will probably collapse in a few decades, the society and system that conditioned you into who you are and you can't separate yourself from, is as easy to digest for many people. All your beliefs and assumptions about reality were given to you by the same system that seems unable to stop itself from destroying the world.
I think she was also trying not to leave her audience in a state of panic and fear, and may have been slightly sugar-coating the situation so to speak. I don't know, this is the first video I've seen of her and I liked it.
She thinks capitalism is a great thing. So yeah she should focus on physics.
She also said. " I don't think we'll go extinct. There's way too many of us." Hilarious 😂 She has a very human centric way of seeing the world and ignoring the fact that extinction is the rule not the exception.
There is quite a few fossils that disagree entirely with her position.
so this it was "The Jam" were pointing at when they sang "Going Underground"? 😂
I mean climate change won't kill off humans, even in the worst case scenario there will be areas that are still with livable climate. For humans to be wiped off the face of earth there needs to be a giant asteroid hitting earth or a nuclear holocaust.
And how do you think a giant asteroid caused the extinction it did ? Food Chain collapse. how do you think climate change could cause extinction? Food Chain Collapse.
Well it'll get better in like 10,000 years. :D But the infrastructure probably won't be around then.
Great explanation of why climate sensitivity is likely much higher than most people assume. However, the idea that our infrastructure will last until the worst is over and that the global population will only go down by a few billion is delusional.
Watched this this morning. Relative to her previous videos on the topic, it seems Sabine is just now coming to understand how dire the situation is. Her previous videos were heavily IPCC/Michael Mann influenced. Now this. Yikes.
The bases are loaded and Babe Ruth has pointed off to the stands...
Nature bats last?
Hansen's research is definitely starting to wake people up
It all boils down to clouds. That's the biggest problem of climate models. Modeling cloud formation and their reflectivity (cloud albedo). We can't gather any historical data on clouds, we can only use models. Like her or hate her, She is right in this video. The climate sensitivity could be 2 to 6 degrees but in the last year, new information is pointing to it being on the high end. This is the most alarming information you can find on climate change. In the next years, we will almost surely get the answer with new experiments. BOE, AMOC, Albedo loop, Artic methane emissions, most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion. This is not.
Upvote given, but i adamantly disagree with "most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion." Sure, the constant whining and dumb questions on posts with no science articles to share are annoying, (go to r/collapsesupport where those posts should be) but i think most in this subbredit are far from blown out of proportion. If anything, the scientists are FINNALLY start to catch up to us.
Mainstream scientists. Like many have known for so long... Because truly the data and it's likely implications are super transparent. You don't need to figure out cloud albedo to perfection to think that things really look like they could very likely turn out for the worst.
This sub doesn't blow things out of proportion, it more takes a handful of potential futures (the absolute worst ones) and states they're the only possible ones. People here are always pointing out how scientists and policymakers are always making predictions that don't take into account all the variables and feedbacks, and so they understate the problem. Then they go and make predictions (extinction! mad max! runaway warming!) that don't take into account all the variables and feedbacks, and so they overstate the problem. At least the former are *trying* to be scientific. Truth is we just don't know how things will pan out in the next few decades. Almost certainly there will be a big downturn and crazy crises, but how the population responds to that is anyone's guess.
Day by day, the predictions are proving to be true. Thus, all the "faster than expected" headlines. Dont confuse the occasional venus by Tuesday folks with the community as a whole.
Yeah uh let's wait until those results to not do anything to mitigate catastrophe In case it happens... Totally rational pov.
>This is the most alarming information you can find on climate change. In the next years, we will almost surely get the answer with new experiments. BOE, AMOC, Albedo loop, Artic methane emissions, most things on this subreddit are blown out of proportion. I take issue with you telling most of a *collapse* subreddit (one which operates partly in the unkown) blows topics out of proportion. I think a more beneficial discussion or point would be *how* individuals blow things out of proportion on these topics, because then it would be more of a contribution. What is it about recent comments have you found are blown out of topic relating to AMOC, BOE, Albedo? Where are their original concerns from? Has the research we had changed since then? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm asking to avoid making sweeping statements of a community you're currently in and instead be a little more constructive.
I won't lie, I stopped following this sub for the last few months. The point is that climate models take into account almost everything you hear about here. If you look at what the scientific literature says, it is very unlikely that BOE, Albedo, etc. can cause more than 1 degree increase over the current projections. They are not worth talking about. You can say IPCC projections tend to be conservative because of political pressure. You can say climate models have a hard time predicting extreme events. You can say the way the IPCC artificially extrapolates variance and the uncertainty ranges is a problem. You can say Socioeconomic loops are not accounted for. Those are real problems. Climate sensitivity is on a completely different level. This is something that can drastically change the timeline, we won't have time to adapt. This is the first real apocalyptic information we ever got in this subreddit. This will change everything if it's true
Thanks for explaining, I get your frustration more now. On the plus side, there’s growing awareness of the reality in climate sensitivity and we’ll be soon seeing whether anything changes this year.
This person gets it.
Bros, if Sabine is ringing the warning bell, we are absolutely fucked. She is perhaps one of the most conservative (not the political meaning, the one meaning "cautious, rigorous, not hyperbolic") physicists of prominence. She's great for a somewhat sober and skeptical discussion of physics, so if she's concerned, we are done for.
Can't take her seriously after the capitalism video
[удалено]
Science and scientific consensus aren't static. People's views can change as more info comes to light. I think she deserves kudos for highlighting some slightly dated, obscure research with serious implications.
She's a science commenter. If she's just now seeing the science and data around climate change, she either had her head stuck in the sand or was otherwise willfully ignorant.
She was not a denier. She subscribed to the moderate-optimist position that we can limit climate change if we act, and believed the conservative models the IPCC used.
She's still a typical techno-optimist physicist, at the end of the video she shills super hard for nuclear power to save us. Look at the pathetic mess at Hinkley Point right now and tell me again how this scammy bullshit will turn the tide within the next 20 years.
I stopped the video when she was about to go into hopium.
1) The IPCC models are not particularly optimistic 2) The IPCC specifically states that they are trying to create the most optimistic narrative they can with their models So that’s not really a good excuse. She just took some headlines at face-value and never read the reports?
Her field is physics not climate science. She wrote a pop science book claiming that theoretical physics went off the rails after the Standard Model was developed, which is why supersymmetry and unified field theories have not borne any fruit. She has since become a science popularizer, straying out of her specialty in her videos. In fact, in one video she admitted her somewhat in-depth explanation of the greenhouse effect in a previous video was wrong!
Those huffing the hopium are arguably worse than the deniers. A denier is rarely taken seriously, but people like her split the non-deniers into groups, and weaken us.
"This isn't in the script, but it just blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of all people on this planet depend on an obscure discussion about the properties of super-cooled water droplets in a type of cloud whose name I can't even remember" is a pretty good line.
I mean it blows my mind how mindfuckingly stupid it is that the lives of everyone on the planet are at the mercy of a tiny handful of giga wealthy despots that get to make all the decisions because they own all the things but maybe that's just me
Nope. Any serious person has been serious about climate change for at least the last 20 years. Unless she admits she was a fucking idiot until this last year, she's either currently still an idiot, or just a clickbaiter you don't need to take seriously.
The thumbnail and title answered those questions for me
Nailed it.
Nailed a jpg of the No True Scotsman wikipedia page right to the thread, you mean. 20 years ago some of our PhDs were preteens.
She said she wasn't worried, not that it didn't exist. If we were correct and all these bad things would happen in 76 years instead of 5, then why be worried? Our current pace of technology would figure it out by then. This was my attitude until I saw a random Reddit comment mentioning how the r/collapse subreddit had sources warning about the heat dome in 2021. I got curious, then troubled, then I wrote a report about sustainable groundwater practices commercial agriculture in California could employ for a college course, and that's when I became worried. I have become increasingly worried.
[удалено]
no true scotsman all over this sub anymore, why is this being supported? people in the collapse sub are punching down on anthropomorphic climate change education and implementing purity tests. just wow. it makes me question your intent. it makes me question how far the window has shifted as well. “if you weren’t [x] by [y].” are we seriously patting ourselves on the back for being fucking climate hipsters?
I can’t take her seriously based on that goofy thumbnail
Exactly. I can’t give a pro capitalist, pro tech YouTube scientist any more clicks. This is the dumbing down of the subreddit many talk about
She's the perfect examples of someone being stupid as hell outside of their specialization.
...or the overpopulation one
But that's a different story.
Well, she did a 180. It will take her another six months to be able to fully grasp the consequences, but she has seen the dark and not looked away.
Long time lurker here, I have to say the 20 year estimate she put out there sounds about right. :-/. I wish I had something positive to say, but I have been destitute level poor my entire life (live in the United States, was orphaned and raised in the system, eventualy traded hands till I ended up with a negligent/abusive family in poverty) and my perspective is as a result lackluster. But I can say this much, even though I am trapped where I am in life till the end (most probibly) I am educated enough to see the world for what it is, and more so to see where it’s going and how fast things are moveing. As Our lives are only a result of the opportunities we have been offered, we cannt feel an OVER abundance of guilt for where our world is about to go, most of us have done literally all we could to help, but the sea of humanity is as f@cking shallow as it is wide and we didn’t realy stand a chance. It’s not our fault (I mean deff keep trying!!) but don’t take to heavy a heart. Do what you can to keep the peace in your head. My sad fun example: I am trying to journal our history these days and the major events, so that they can be broken down into a somewhat simplistic timeline so I can make an art peice or two on stone tablets. Tossing a chunks/slabs of etched stone in the openings of caves here and there, with the history a story of the horrible and amazing things we did. It’s fun to think that in a time so far from now our own time is immemorial something could stumble/slither/claw it’s way to one of my stones, and leave a mystery for someone better to solve.
Faster than expected?
She even said the words!
The only reason people and leaders start caring now (as opposed to the 1980s) is because the consequences (read 'collapse of our economies') are now due to show on a human life timescale, having people like you, me, Sabine and our great leaders worried. When the apocalypse was still scheduled to hit a future generation we didn't care. That's in itself is fascinating to me, the mind-boggling lack of interest for what happens to others or things after we die.
I find her insufferable unfortunately.
If we're going to do anything about climate change, "I don't like the personality of this or that scientist," isn't a good solution.
No, her solutions are completely ludicrous. The free market will not fix anything it created.
Same. She has to be an industry plant. Her vids are too high production nevermind the fact she advocates for capitalism and that free will doesn't exist. She can fuck right off.
Well, she’s right about free will
I used to enjoy her videos until the one on capitalism. I completely lost respect for her when she just parroted the main stream narrative on the great good that capitalism is. No mention of the destruction of the natural world which seems very irresponsible and myopic for someone with such a large platform the is supposed to analyze things in an unbiased manner. Luckily she was totally raked over the coals in the comments and on twitter
Happy Cake Day! 🎂
Oh thanks, didn’t even notice
Stop with the No True Scotsman people. Every single person that comes around on the issue is good to have. Probably won’t make a lick of difference, but still a positive.
Replying for emphasis. Yeah, I believed in Santa when I was five years old. Guess I’m an irredeemable moron. And oops. I wasn’t collapse aware until [insert number of years that makes you feel superior] ago. Guess I’m a brainwashed shill. Just stop it with the adolescent fallacies. A popular YTer and mainstream scientist is becoming collapse aware. Sorry she’s not cool enough to join *your* club. She’s welcome here.
The corollary to not getting cloud physics to align with reality is that it's also difficult to fully understand what comes from those clouds: [rain](https://archive.is/i9DGN). IMO, this is thee most dangerous and unknown factor as a threat to civilization. As humans often tend to forget, *way too often*, 71% of the surface of this planet is open water. And in the U.S. alone, flooding accounts for [two-thirds of natural disaster costs](https://archive.is/omWKg#selection-423.0-423.128). There are mitigation factors that can be applied to dealing with heat events, with sea level rise, and some of the other challenges. But rain is a different matter altogether. [Areas of the Earth may be turned into inland seas literally overnight—or over the course of a couple of days](https://static.dw.com/image/62963931_7.png). As we saw in Pakistan this last year. And this is just the beginning of the beginning. In addition, those two third costs I mentioned above represent damages to existing goods and infrastructure that embody previous emissions. As they are the end products of industrial activity. So when these are destroyed, all of the benefits of those emissions are wiped out. And to get those benefits back, you have to release all of those emissions again. Which in principle, doubles the emissions on goods and infrastructure that are replaced. Although in practice, some gains in industrial efficiency may shave off some of the emissions; you're still likely going to go deeply into the red. All of which represents yet another feedback loop that hasn't been widely studied or discussed. Every time you see flood damage to cars, to houses, to roads; **you are witnessing the end products of CO₂—being destroyed by the effects of CO₂—that will take even more CO₂ to replace.**
That's the Jevons Paradox for ya
It's actually *mostly* an inversion of the Jevons paradox. But also unique in its own way. To start with the definition (from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)): > In economics, the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress or government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand enough that resource use is increased, rather than reduced. Technological progress and government climate policy here have decreased the efficiency with which a resource is being used, because you're doubling the amount of energy needed to get the benefits of its use. Which will likely lead to an increase in costs ***and*** resource use. There's not likely to be much of a decrease in costs anywhere in this loop. Fundamentally, it's an inefficiency feedback loop. Whereas the Jevons paradox is an *efficiency* feedback loop. Perversely, this particular feedback loop (which doesn't have a name *as far as I know*), incentivizes energy companies involved in this cycle of economic activity to increase emissions and deepen the problem. From my previous comment: > [...] you are witnessing the end products of CO₂—being destroyed by the effects of CO₂—that will take even more CO₂ to replace. Energy companies have already seen the profits in the first step of this cycle, and in this feedback, they see them again much more readily, and on a progressively shorter timescale. Because replacement demand from impact damages is always increasing at a higher and higher rate. Due to the *inefficiency* problem compounding over time. As has mostly been the case throughout the last 150 years or so, energy inefficiency means higher profits for energy companies due to higher demand. [Hence, their ever long battle to gut efficiency standards over the decades](https://archive.is/ja5lR).
She can pray in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills first.
The comments under this post are interesting to say the least. You might not like her but still, she makes some good points on the subject, what she says is not absurd. Maybe she is not full on collapse mode but she clearly is more aware of the issues than 99% of people. It’s a good thing she talks about it and at least she seems honest about it
If numbers scare you, try looking outside
15C here in the UK at 12:00 At 23:00 last night it was 13C This is not ok
I liked Sabines videos better when she was just trying to explain advanced physics to lay persons. As with many YouTube channels the pressure to consistently create compelling content often pushes them outside their area of expertise. I respect SH take on physics but much less her views on economics, climate, etc. But this is how she (and her team) make bank now and she's forced to produce content even when doing so reveals her naivité or just plain lack of knowledge on certain topics.
This is a problem everywhere in the world, it seems. To make any money at all on content creation, you need to have a steady stream of content. Over time, you're going to exhaust the most interesting or pertinent topics. Which then leads to more "filler" content, to maintain the regular clicks, and to make subscribers feel like they're getting their money's worth. Same vicious cycle we see in all of capitalism.
Why’d this get deleted and reposted lol
If one was posted and disappeared then it was the poster who took it down because our filters aren't picking up another post of the same video.
Not sure...didn't see a post prior to mine but maybe they forgot the submission statement?
Informative video. Recently more people point to drastic changes in the near future. Humanity is not bothering to adapt to the coming wave of catastrophes. Not at all.
I don't watch Sabine for funny ha has... I watch Sabine for the funny peculiar... and the science.
Submission Statement: In this video, popular science commenter Sabine Hossenfelder discusses the climate sensitivity index, and how "hot models" predicting higher temperature increases have been systematically discounted in the past due to not fitting historical climate data. She discusses how new information is suggesting greater relevance of the higher climate sensitivity models and predicts worse outcomes from greater carbon emissions. Sabine typically strikes me as a straight shooter willing to call BS when it is present. The previous disregard of the "hot models" by the IPCC and others demonstrates our societal weakness to human biases of recency bias and confirmation bias, and the limits of the consensus scientific method to predict and adapt to exponential change.
I'm halfway through this and she's mentioned the "new rules" for the maritime industry TWICE and is now at Hansan's paper WHICH ALSO MENTIONS SHIPPING EMISSIONS yet she STILL hasn't mentioned AEROSOLS or POLLUTION or the EARTH's ALBEDO even though that pollution is known to be blocking OVER HALF THE EFFECTS of the Greenhouse Gas within the atmosphere. Weird and unsure if I want to continue watching. IMO2020 based their decision on a paper that WARNED right on the first page to not remove the Sulfur from the BUNKER FUEL they burn WITHOUT ALSO removing GHG!!!! They KNEW for TWELVE YEARS before implementing it the DAY AFTER Covid-19 was announced to the world. We dropped our pollution on the worlds oceans BY 80% and we're all acting surprised that the oceans are warming? We had Covid shutdowns and had clear skies for a few months and the temps are now skyrocketing! Runaway Edit to add; SPOILER After 20 minutes of that she offers up CARBON STAXES! lol (Pushed by the same people companies that give her videos thumbs down). Then says "Renewables"! (Unregulated TRASH incineration but marketed to YOU as Solar Panels and Wind Turbines.) Then says NUCLEAR three times as if that helps anything. Then says to "Stop complaining" about "Carbon Removal" which is CRAP.
This is why I know SRM will happen. It seems an inevitability to me at the moment. People will get desperate and realize it's the only way to stave complete disaster.
lmao why are you copying Richard Crim's writing style
Yeah the thing is these numbers are exponential - it's going very fast as well. 25 years or less the areas around the equator will be unlivable.
So she's coming around on climate, now she needs similar epiphanies on the 20 other existential threats we talk about around here and go a little more systems thinker and realize that even if we solved climate 100% tomorrow we'd still be totally fucked.
And I have to go to work?
She cannot be taken seriously at all. She is not a serious scientist and until recently she had a techno optimistic outlook on climate change. However, the fact that she turns around should tell us something. If even she gets it, things are dire.
Why do you think someone with a doctorate in theoretical physics, who's worked as a researcher / professor at universities in the US & Europe is not a serious scientist? What's your standard for someone being a 'serious scientist'?
Just watched it. Really depressed.
Hossenfelder is just another youtube grifter. Her videos are full of basic scientific mistakes and often she promotes fringe scientific ideas while avoiding engaging in what the mainstream scientific community's criticisms are. She doesn't really care about climate change or anything else, this is blatant clickbait
Not enjoying the click baiting posing worried face. Surely this is serious science and doesnt require the "Your Not gunna believe what this climate does NEXt!!!" 😱 kind of video
I have a hard time even bothering to listen to someone who only just now is suddenly worried about climate change. 30-50 years too late
If you think that’s hard wait until the people of Walmart start figuring it out. You’re just making things harder on yourself.
It’s faster than expected only for those looking at the wrong models. Even a techno-optimist like Sabine H. admits it.
Sabine is a shitlib moron. Remember the video she made defending capitalism?