Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

ChristianKl comments on Levels of global catastrophes: from mild to extinction - Less Wrong

3 Post author: turchin 27 December 2015 05:26PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (19)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2015 10:00:44PM 0 points [-]

Could you point me to an article that specifies that this would actually race temperatures to Venus levels?

Comment author: turchin 27 December 2015 10:15:45PM 0 points [-]

This wiki article have many links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change But I would like to clarify my position: I am not a climatologist and can't independently evaluate these claims on math level, but I understand their logic and think that while runaway climate change is low probability event, we should do more to prevent it. The interesting point is similarity between two communities. The community of people who think that self-improving AI is possible and is x-risk and community of people who think that runaway warming is possible and is x-risks. The most interesting thing is that both communities choose to ignore each other. But the mechanism of risk (positive feedback) and timeframe (2030) is almost the same.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2015 10:27:55PM *  1 point [-]

That article says:

Global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.

That would be really bad but it's not the same as total extinction.

timeframe (2030)

I don't think that's the timeframe of the LW community as shown by our census.

Comment author: turchin 27 December 2015 10:43:33PM *  0 points [-]

timeframe (2030)

I checked the timeframe in Arctic-news.com. They said that things will become serious after 2030, but extinction will happen around 2060. It is shown on last graph in http://arctic-news.blogspot.ru/p/the-mechanism.html As I remember the LW census, it put AI on 2060? Could you remind me exact data?

Comment author: ChristianKl 28 December 2015 12:05:42AM *  1 point [-]

As I remember the LW census, it put AI on 2060? Could you remind me exact data?

(in the form mean + stdev (1st quartile, 2nd quartile, 3rd quartile) [n = number responding]))
From 2013:
Singularity year: 1.67E +11 + 4.089E+12 (2060, 2090, 2150) [n = 1195]
From 2014:
Singularity: 2143.44 + 356.643 (2060, 2090, 2150) [1177]

Comment author: turchin 27 December 2015 10:37:49PM 0 points [-]

I fail to see the difference. Of course, if we take into account possible space colonies it will not be extinction... Also the article speaks about "which refers specifically to climate changes that cause a planetary body's water to boil off". I don't think it is survivable.

Also runaway global warming is (relatively) easy to prevent by the means of geo-engineering.

Comment author: ChristianKl 27 December 2015 10:57:16PM 0 points [-]

Most of the planet being uninhabitable means that there are still part of it that are habitable.

Comment author: turchin 27 December 2015 11:25:45PM 1 point [-]

May be it will be highest mountains after 7000 meters, which will turn from - 50 to +30 C. Wiki said that threshold for water runway warming is 47 C (at 10 per cent high solar luminosity) and if it reached, the temperature will reach 900 C in new stable state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth#Loss_of_oceans It means that very hot earth where small highlands will still be habitable - is still in unstable condition and could have much higher global warming.