The models/simulations are falsified by the evidence:
Notice that that darkens the planet’s albedo, accelerating the progression of ClimatePunctuation/GlobalWarming…
and that the models/simulations contradict the evidence, saying that what happened wouldn’t happen.
The real & correct prediction is that we have already put 5-6C global-warming’s worth of CO2 into the atmosphere, AND we have also added other greenhouse gasses, like methane, & sulfur-hexafluoride.
Here is the robust fact:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19798
The powerlaw they discovered that governs the interglacial temperatures is this:
280ppm is a good pre-industrial CO2 measure.
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2) == +1C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^2 == +2C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^3 == +3C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^4 == +4C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^5 == +5C ( we are at 421, which is above this )
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^6 == +6C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^7 == +7C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^8 == +8C
- 280ppm * (9th-root-of-2)^9 == +9C ( aka 280ppm * 2 == +9C )
At that point, the CO2 level has been doubled.
CO2 acts like the Gate in a bipolar transistor: the tiny current you put into the gate, the HUGE current flows through the Source-Drain part of the transistor.
Increase the CO2, & that increases the moisture in the atmosphere, which MASSIVELY increases the amount of retained solar heat.
Pretending that +2C is attainable, now, is delusional.
I’m no longer certain that there will be ANY life around the equator, in 1 century, at or near the surface.
My comment isn’t on your script, it is on paper-selection…
Please have several, orthogonal, selection-systems:
most-cited,
most trustworthy researchers
most unique area of research, or most unique question, or something
most central to new tech
most central to old tech
most undernoticed, big potential… ( things that should be big news, but the global novelty-addiction ignores it )
best fundamental science ( definitely include this category! )
best citizen-science
etc…
iow, the algorithm that most use, which is “paying attention to what others are paying attention to” is an algorithm we shouldn’t be assigning our viability to, you know?
Also, you may need to make a flexible-limit for dumbing-down, as some papers may have a higher limit and others a lower limit, so some could be easy for most to get the sense of, but some might be tricky … and it might well do more good to let them have their different thresholds, see?