Want to restore the planet's ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? The first 200 people to join Planet Wild with my code will get the first month...

Research paper referenced in the video that makes Dr. Hossenfelder very worried:

Global warming in the pipeline: https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889

Abstract

Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2σ) per W/m2, which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO2. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era—including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases—supports this sensitivity and implies that CO2 was 300–350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970–2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.

My basic summary (I am NOT a climate scientist so someone tell me if I’m wrong and I HOPE this is wrong for my children), scientists had dismissed hotter climate models due to the fact that we didn’t have historical data to prove them. Now folks are applying hotter models to predicting weather and the hotter models appear to be more accurate. So it looks like we’re going to break 2C BEFORE 2050 and could hit highs of 8C-10C by the end of the century with our CURRENT levels of green house gases, not even including increasing those.

EDIT: Adding more sources:

Use of Short-Range Forecasts to Evaluate Fast Physics Processes Relevant for Climate Sensitivity: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001986

Short-term tests validate long-term estimates of climate change: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01484-5

    • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
      039·
      9 months ago

      Yes it is, you’re talking about mass producing tons of very specific plans, poisoning everything with monsanto and it required more land and for what’s worth it might not be that healthy. We should eat about everything not just plants.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        17·
        9 months ago

        And producing meat uses 2 to 7 times (depending on what animal) the amount of mass produced monoculture to feed the animals instead of just eating the food ourselves. Ideally animals would just eat scraps or graze on land not suitable for growing things, but the industry requires exact growth rates and predictable schedules in large volumes.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          115·
          9 months ago

          producing meat uses 2 to 7 times (depending on what animal) the amount of mass produced monoculture to feed the animals instead of just eating the food ourselves

          most people don’t want to eat the byproduct of soybean oil production, and we can’t live on grass.

          animals aren’t fed stuff that would land on our plate (for the most part) so it’s not like it’s an option to just eat their feed instead of giving it to them.

          • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
            9·
            9 months ago

            Animals are just fed small amounts of byproduct in industrial agriculture right now. The largest part of the animal feed is soy itself, rice, wheat and corn and those are things we do eat.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              23·
              9 months ago

              the vast majority of the soy fed to animals is the byproduct of soybean oil production: about 85% of all soybeans globally are pressed for oil.

                  • jak@sopuli.xyz
                    7·
                    9 months ago

                    So? There’s more than enough space to grow more without approaching the greenhouse gas levels of meat production. If 30% of crop yields were inedible, that would still be far less waste than happens due to eating on a higher trophic level.

      • calzone_gigante@lemmy.eco.br
        16·
        9 months ago

        You know that livestock needs to eat, right ? And they eat a ton of food, we spend a lot of resources just to produce their food, and about health, the healthy amount of meat is way less that people eat today, people should eat less meat, not everyone needs to stop, but they should reduce.

      • krellor@kbin.social
        14·
        9 months ago

        So first there is a difference between reduction of meat products and an elimination. Having people consume less meat is good and helpful even if they don’t cut it out completely.

        Second, as a vegetarian, I don’t understand what you mean by producing a bunch of monocultures. Do you think vegans just sit around all day eating avocados? I eat very little dairy or egg, and my diet consists largely of beans, rice, chilli, bread, stir fry, tofu, peanuts/legumes, veggies, baked potatoes, sandwiches, etc. I eat a large variety of staple goods cooked into a variety of dishes from around the world, and classic American fare, just without meat. Avocados and other resource intensive crops like almonds are a minority of my diet by a large margin. Things like beyond meat is also an infrequent treat.

        Edit: here’s a decent article. https://www.nytimes.com/article/plant-based-diet.html

        Generally speaking, a plant-based diet consists largely of vegetables, fruit, beans, legumes, grains and nuts, with little or no meat, dairy or fish.

        Yet another major study has recently been published, showing that eating a plant-based diet is significantly better for the environment than eating a meat-based diet.

        The research, conducted by Oxford University, found that people who follow a meat-free diet are responsible for 75 percent less in greenhouse gas emissions than those who eat meat every day, and that following a low-meat, vegetarian or pescatarian diet is proportionally less detrimental to land, water and biodiversity than a meat-heavy diet.

        Referenced research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        151·
        9 months ago

        I just wonder wtf you think the animals we eat are eating if not plants? Space magic?

          • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
            21·
            9 months ago

            What do you suppose they already grow to feed the majority of the meat animals we eat?

            We already produce more than enough food to feed the planet, and we’d have 10x more if we ate what we feed industrially farmed animals.

            • TCB13@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              9 months ago

              and we’d have 10x more if we ate what we feed industrially farmed animals.

              You can’t eat that or that alone and what you can and need is way worse for the environment.

              • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
                11·
                9 months ago

                Who suggested eating it alone? We already eat a wide variety of food that isn’t animal based, this would continue if we replaced meat with soy.

                Way worse for the environment? How so?