3 ms·
Yep exactly, so far we haven't even gotten the second derivative of what we're trying to stabilize to go in the right direction. Global carbon emissions are sti
by adrianN 6y ago
Yep exactly, so far we haven't even gotten the second derivative of what we're trying to stabilize to go in the right direction. Global carbon emissions are still rising!
- ben_w 6y agoSecond derivative has been negative 22 years out of the 44 I can calculate it for with this data set: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-year/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by... More importantly, exponential growth of the solution is much faster than the sub-exponential growth of the problem. Indeed, faster than almost everything else in the technological world — so far as I am aware, only Moore’s law and the cost of gene reading/writing have been improving faster for any length of time.
- adrianN 6y agoI only count 9 years with a negative change in emissions (6 of which are probably due to the oil crisis?). The number that matters for warming is the total CO2 concentration. Emissions are the first derivative, change in emissions is the second derivative.
- ben_w 6y agoAh, gotcha. I was doing second derivative of emissions. Still sub-exponential, which is why I’m still optimistic.
- pmiller2 6y ago> Still sub-exponential, which is why I’m still optimistic. If you said that about an algorithm you were considering introducing into production code, I'd say you had a lot of optimization to go. Or, maybe you need to improve your proof. :P
- ben_w 6y ago“Sub-exponential” is a statement of the problem space, the solution is log(n) :P