Sabine Hossenfelder 
Want to restore the planet’s ecosystems and see your impact in monthly videos? For the first 200 people to join Planet Wild, I will …
source
About The Author
World's First Non-profit Media on Sustainability & Climate Change
Why do YouTubers replace videos so rarely, even if they know a video contains a mistake?
It's because if you upload a correction, that will be recommended to people who have already watched the first version. They are unlikely to watch it again, or not watch it entirely. The almighty algorithm concludes that the video is not interesting and stops recommending it to other people.
In brief, taking a video down is a bad idea.
As you see, I did it anyway. That's because the first version of the video contained a serious mistake, which is that I said that temperatures would continue to increase after reaching net zero. I had forgotten that carbon dioxide is taken up slowly from the atmosphere by natural processes, so left to its own devices the levels will actually slightly decrease. This together with the lag of temperature behind the carbon dioxide level is expected to stabilize temperatures. (Provided no other sources contribute, like methane leaks from the ground etc.)
It's a mistake that you find in other places as well, but I think it's really important to get this right and I do not want to contribute to spreading it.
You will greatly help us if you let this video run until the end, maybe give it a thumb up if you think it deserves it, and share on your socials, if you still use those and if you think other people might find it useful.
The quiz for this video is here: https://quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1699515745778×206633411542960240
Thanks for your patience. We try really hard to avoid mistakes, but sometimes they slip through despite our best efforts.
So glad you're not a far rightwing grifter and using your high intellect for good and not tax dodging corporate evil😊
This article sums up the concerns of the academic community The Conversation climate scientists concept of net-zero is a dangerous trap
“The emission reductions that high-income countries achieved through absolute decoupling fall far short of Paris-compliant rates. At the achieved rates, these countries would on average take more than 220 years to reduce their emissions by 95%, emitting 27 times their remaining 1·5°C fair-shares in the process.”
Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries, Lancet Planetary Health
Stop buying shite from China and plant trees.
How are small modular nuclear reactors progressing? Why arn't they a thing yet? UK has loads of islands which could house them and shallow offshore waters too.
14:01 I am sorry. What? Remove a billion tons every year from 2030? Many countries can't even reach net zero by 2030 with current measures. How on earth are they going to take a billion tons out a year, even if they do reach net zero by 2030? We are really screwed aren't we?
The only rational approach is learn to adapt.
You're silly if you think you're going to control the whole ecosphere.
So what are we gonna feed the plants ? Get off the drugs.
Hi Sabine. Thank you for educating me. Thank you for working so hard to try and get to the bottom of all this "global warming" talked about by others. Thank you for trying to put the facts out into public. I am not a tree.
Since nearly 98% of all CO2 'emissions' come from natural respiration, net zero could also be achieved by wiping out 2% of animal life- and imagining that's going to improve the weather.
But there is an intuitive feeling that human CO2 is somehow worse than natural CO2- it's the same thing.
CO2 is 0.041% of atmosphere. CO2 produced by human activiteiten is only 2.9 % of all CO2. There is no such thing like greenhouse, gasses are not trapped in earths atmosphere, its energy echanges with Space, its an open system. So called CHG only delay the energy exchange a tiny unnoticable influence. It is water clouds, the main contributie of the delay of energy exchane back to space. GHG is estimate 78% clouds, 18 % CO2 and some other. CO2 is gass of life and currently CO2 level is extremely low estimate 408 parts per million, for Life CO2 level must be above 200ppm. CO2 level was above 2000 and even 7000ppm over millions of years, the gas of life gives life on earth, in fact of all living species ever lived, 95% are extinct most due low CO2 level. About CO2 and temperatures. CO2 is a cooling molecule, it can not warm up the earth, contrary the suns energy is by 1 mean cooled by CO2, in fact data shows that CO2 level is only increasing 400-6000 after when earths temperatures rises. Quantummechanics laws rules out that CO2 could hold energy as a blanket ((Prof.Nahle 2010-2011). 3D CO2 dislocation prevents enough energy waves to collide, the measured distances are just to long. Also, CO2 molecule can retain heat at the surface for only 0.0001 second and emits photons immediately into 3D space. That energy can not be stored in earhs atmosphere. In fact its a cooling mecanism, a cooling molecule. If that het loss is slowed down at a rate of 0.0001 second by CO2 molecules, the CO2 level, whether 300 or 400ppm effectively does not matter, timelaps differential would be immaterial, thus no effect climat change or warming periods on the earth. Which is in line with Ice-layered data retrieved, over millions of years, where "extreme" CO2 level 2000-7000 ppm, generaly provides average temperatures, however with extremely wilde variety and great numbers of living species.
16:05
Man, it has been quite some time since I've heard of those guys… 😅
I feel like there take here says most-all you need to know about them, lol.
We can easily reach 0 carbon energy but the issue isn't capability it's finance. We live on a giant spinning magnet. Please take a moment to think about what that can potentially be used for if properly harnessed. Whether censorship in science, patent offices or other means comes into effect, many over time have developed working electrical devices which were subsequently discredited, bought out, or when all else failed, the inventors life subscription was forcefully cancelled.
Just as levitation using diamagnetics is absolutely plausible, people are still futzing about with superconductors and supercooling.
Yes we don't specifically need carbon emission based energy, but are in a self destructive economic cycle.
That’s why they made up the covid thing=less of us, net zero sooner. Then the elites can create their shangrila
if climate change is real, then how come I need to turn on my heater to stay warm
Each tree stores 48 pounds of carbon, (annually and permanently)how many trees do we have in Canada???? Too many to count. How much money does the world owe us? Beyond outrageous what they do to us. Yup socialism, destroy capitalism.
So, when we get to net zero, will we find out that CO2 is NOT the climate change control knob? Sounds like a reasonable hypotheses test. But wait there might be further complications to requalify CO2 as the climate changer. Stay tuned to find out. But don't forget, climates have been changing ever since God closed the door on Noah's ark.
Like. do you have any video about fusion?
Ah, Sabine, I've developed a green energy machine (GEM) that can harvest wind, solar, wave and flowing water energy using substantially the same mechanisms. Curious?
As the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, do we intend to get rid of H2O?
Thank you for explaining the 'Net Zero Myth.' Almost all the assumptions assume we have many decades left to achieve these goals.
Virtually all nuclear energy promoters, are in line with the vast majority of Earth's other 8.0+ billion humans, who continue to assume that we still have at least 20 years left to turn this 'Titanic' around using their favorite nuclear technology. They have become masterful in excluding the following warnings from their consciousness. I urge readers to search for the following two article titles.
IPCC report: ‘now or never’ if world is to stave off climate disaster (TheGuardian)
UN chief: World has less than 2 years to avoid 'runaway climate change' (TheHill)
* This statement was made 5.7 years ago.
what loverly funny lady
Given that China, India, Russia, and a bunch of smaller countries that have ditched ideology in favor of development increase their emissions by more than the west reduces it, I think Europe (which is now 10% of emissions) should stop all emissions immediately. The advantages are numerous: 1) doubling the amount of time it will take for the increase in emissions from those countries to counter the decrease in Europe, namely from 2,5 years if we slowly kill our economy vs 5 years if we commit suicide immediately. 2) Prove Darwin right 3) Die virtuous and immediately go to heaven 4) Let the imperialist warmongers score an auto-goal 5) Allow international bodies to stop obsessing about carbon, and possibly worry about real ecological problems: overfishing, deforestation, antibiotic resistance, heavy metal pollution, sulfur and nitrous emissions, etc… Other than that, thanks for the clear graphs Sabine. They clearly show that climbing on top of the tree when you want to go the moon gets you no closer to your goal, even though I dont think it was your point. You are a free-thinker, but not quite ready for the red-pill yet. I trust that will come in due time though.
Human CO2 emission – the greatest threat to our survival – until it comes to war. Somehow the emission of CO2 during war is irrelevant and not a problem. Has anyone calculated CO2 emissions as a result of the wars in the Ukraine and Middle East and why, mysteriously, this is of no consequence for human induced CO2 emissions.
The simple solution to saving the planet, that is if it was at risk from humans, is to cut back on world population levels. World governments had the opportunity to do this cut back during early 2000. But they all chose to do nothing to control their growing levels of population. Had they all taken action then the world's population level would be 25% less than it stands at today. On this point alone, just how much less CO2 would we be producing today"?", hence would global warming be a problem anymore"?". Governments, along with Global Businesses, do not want lower levels of populations because this means less growth all around. Money/profits, is the reason why we are Governments are dancing around their handbags over Net Zero 2030/2050. Here along with big business rubbing their hands regarding all the profits they are making from this Net Zero drive, it is all a complete and utter farce, and time it was all brought to an end.
Dear Friends :
How much Energy and Raw material are requested for doing a relevant Carbon Removal ?
I think at least considering the background in Thermodynamic laws , Entropy is a Huge Huge quantity .A big deal and big numbers .-
Feasible ? I Don think so in timming at least .-
Dont agree with any of your figures or data. Net zero is a fantasy because 97% of all co2 emissions comes from the earth itself, less than 3% comes from human activity . !80 billion tons come from the oceans , decaying and rotting land plants , volcanoes etc., with about 6 billion tons from human activity (annually) . If you are going to quote ''pre industrial temperatures, you need to go back further than 1800. You should go back 20,000 years where over that time we had the Holocene maximum , the Roman warm period and the Medieval warm period , all much hotter than today and with lower co2 levels. Yes we have warmed since 1800 but that was because the little ice age ended then, its warmed by 0.7c not 1.5 . and btw warming stopped 18 years ago and we are now in the coolest warm period . Co2 is not the control knob of temperature and no one has ever published any actual evidence that it is
Net zero is bullshit
Or you could use a biomechanical mechanism to drive the metabolism of bacteria by renewable energy and cause them to take in CO2 and produce a biofuel that you can drive an electric motor and bury the CO2 in solution after that…. I have been putting this in front of people including the Virgin challenge. No one has suggested that it can’t be done. At the time it was all theoretical but most sections of the plan have since been implemented in other areas so please, if anyone can get this bench tested then they can have the idea. Please help
We can't do anything because China is spitting out the CO2 at rates as there was no tomrrow. And there might not be one because of them.