Alt text:
Once he had the answer, Arrhenius complained to his friends that he'd "wasted over a full year" doing tedious calculations by hand about "so trifling a matter" as hypothetical CO2 concentrations in far-off eras (quoted in Crawford, 1997).
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
346 points (98.6% liked)
xkcd
8582 readers
213 users here now
A community for a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Their work resulted in the often-posted newspaper article speculating how in a few centuries the emissions of burning coal might become a problem for the world's environment. What they didn't anticipate was the rate of increase from a population explosion which would begin its climb in a few decades from various factors.
Like the compounding gains from the individual revolution.
In general, a common mistake among would be futurists is not correctly identifying when there are changes in the acceleration of advancements.
It's not only about measuring the rate of change of the present moment, but also how that rate has shifted over time until now and forecasting that forward. And even then seeing if there's been a change in the rate of acceleration.
The majority only look at the rate of change in the present moment.
Compounding effects often fly under the radar in predictions.
And also the inverse. Some optimistic scifi thinks we would already reach Alpha Centauri by now. Predicting the future in general is hard af.