SotA-R-7: Current Models Predict 4ยฐC of Global Warming
(This is part 7 of the โStages of the Anthropocene, Revisitedโ Series (SotA-R).) Important Note (March 3, 2022) Due to a fundamental flaw in models 1, 2, and 3 in this series, the predictions for average global warming in this article are unreliable. Update (May 21, 2022) Model 4 fixes this problem and predicts +3.7ยฐC. Thereโs no plausible peaceful path to carbon-neutrality. If thereโs one key takeaway from my attempts to model carbon (COโ-equivalent) emissions in stage 1 of the anthropocene, itโs that. Oh, and thatโs it will get hot, of course. Unpleasantly hot. This the fourth in a series...
Stages of the Anthropocene
preface (2022) There are major mistakes in the predictions and calculations involved in this article. For an attempt to come up with better predictions (and thus, an update of this article), see the SotA-R series. The model results presented in the last episode thereof, suggest 3ยฐC to 5ยฐC of average global warming. (Original post) โ Climate scientists donโt often look at the distant future and when they do, their โpredictionsโ are so vague that they hardly count as predictions at all. Most published work on climate change focuses on the current century. There are good reasons, for this, of course...
Crisis and Inertia (3) โ Technological Threats and Crises
(This is part 3 in the โCrisis and Inertiaโ series.) Some advances of technology are feared by many. Some of those fears may be justified; others less so. Nuclear weapons are an obvious threat, but whether artificial intelligence (AI), for example, is likely to cause our demise is more controversial. This series isnโt about threats or fears, however, but about crises. The difference is that threats or fears may materialize, while crises are either already occurring or are unavoidable and thus will occur. Nuclear weapons are not a crisis, but their use would be, and as both the probability of...