5 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. John, when are you going to post on the topic ‘The end of scarcity due to AI’?  There is an emerging consensus that we will see AGI by 2030.  See the articles by Benjamin Todd on this topic.

   https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/the-case-for-agi-by-2030

   https://benjamintodd.substack.com/p/shortening-agi-timelines-a-review

   The implications of rapidly advancing AI are already being felt in society. It is unquestionably going to lead to increased productivity.  Of course the rate of increase in productivity due to AI will depend on many factors, and there are a number of risks that will need to be managed.

   But a very interesting topic on which it would be great to hear your thoughts.

   It looks as though we are right in line with Keynes’ thoughts in  ‘Economic possibilities for our grandchildren’ written in 1930 that the economic problem will be solved or within sight of being solved within 100 years.    (Don’t you find this a bit spooky. This is clear evidence that  Keynes was a member of a conspiracy which has been manipulating  society behind the scenes to achieve this AI dominated utopia!! )

2. A brief update on carbon removal

   I’m sure I irritate some readers in pursuit of my hobby-horse of carbon renewal (CDR) but you are free to ignore me.

   A paper in Nature by Beerling et al ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08429-2) is good background on the enhanced rock weathering method. This starts with spreading ground-up silicate rock on farmland, where rain converts it to soluble carbonates, which are washed by rivers into the oceans, where they are turned back by marine organisms like diatoms into solid calcium carbonate skeletons, which fall to the seabed and eventually turn into beds of limestone, stable for millions of years. Done! Maybe.

   Beerling’s paper doesn’t go into the oceanic bit but goes into details on the land side with simulations of multi-gigatonne programmes covering the US Corn Belt. He claims that “Our simulation results highlight the potential for EW deployment with agriculture to contribute 16–30% of the CDR required from CO2 removal technologies by 2050”, on a par with other methods. Take a look.

   This looks like serious science to me, though by definition I don’t have an informed opinion. A few observations though.

   • This is a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature, not hype.
   • Beerling is a professor at Sheffield University in the UK. He is an investor in a UK CDR startup, so has a declared financial interest. Set this against the peer review, and the 20 co-authors who are also putting their professional credibility on the line.
   • The basic chemistry has been established for some time. However the values for the key parameters – how much and how fast – rely on a skimpy base of small field trials, the possible side-effects need more work, and as I said the paper entirely leaves out the marine side.
   • Even optimistic EW scenarios do not cover all the sequestration need, and Beerling does not propose that other methods can be abandoned just yet.

   There is a large (over 100 kt) field trial under way in Brazil, by German-Brazlian startup InPlanet ( https://inplanet.earth/ ). It is striking that the costs are virtually limited to (a) quarrying, crushing and transporting the rock (b) the complex and comprehensive monitoring needed to prove results. You don’t need to pay the farmers as the rock improves soil quality.

   I won’t be around when large-scale rollout of EW or other CDR becomes a really hot topic, but let me put down a marker on monitoring. InPlanet need this to be comprehensive because they assume deployment will follow a managed capitalist model with a negative carbon price set by governments and competitive bidding for sequestration contracts. Every such contract will include proof of results. The alternative socialist model is for the government to calculate the volumes needed and build the capacity itself, as in a war economy. This scheme will still need monitoring and measurement to justify its planning and monitor its implementation, but this can be done with sampling. This would save over 90% of the measurement costs and most of the rents to intermediaries that have kept carbon offsets marginal. You would miss out on the efficiency gains from competition which have proved illusory in most privatisations.

3. A letter to the Pope on air conditioning; http://www.jameswimberley.es/Notes/Pope%20air%20conditioning.docx

4. Amen, James!! Certainly here in Cali, we should be doing a lot more on this issue. Many, many people suffer – especially considering our high electricity costs.

   I welcome your thoughts about enhanced weathering – it sounds terrific. There was actually an article in the paper here recently, about how to “clean” up wildfire pollution by soil amendments – I wish I’d saved it. (I’ll try a search.) I am just trying to work myself up to do some yard work. Who knows what may be possible? Not me! Except for when I read happy news here.

5. Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf have produced a pre-print scientific paper titled Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly, currently in peer-review, available at Research Square. Leon Simons has extrapolated presented warming rates linearly after +1.5 °C to show additional estimated year cross points:

   Data _ _ _ value _ _ rate _ +1.5 °C _ +2.0 °C _ +2.5 °C _ +3.0 °C _ +3.5 °C _ +4.0 °C
   NASA _ _ _ 1.45 _ _ _ 0.42 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2049 _ _ 2061 _ _ 2073 _ _ 2085
   NOAA _ _ _1.45 _ _ _ 0.42 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2049 _ _ 2061 _ _ 2073 _ _ 2085
   HadCRU _ 1.42 _ _ _ 0.39 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2052 _ _ 2065 _ _ 2077 _ _ 2090
   Berkeley _ 1.45 _ _ _ 0.43 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2039 _ _ 2048 _ _ 2060 _ _ 2072 _ _ 2083
   ERA5 _ _ _ 1.54 _ _ _ 0.48 _ _ 2024 _ _ 2034 _ _ 2044 _ _ 2054 _ _ 2065 _ _ 2075
   = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
   Average _ 1.46 _ _ _ 0.43 _ _ 2026 _ _ 2037 _ _ 2048 _ _ 2060 _ _ 2072 _ _ 2084
   Ending value in °C; rate in °C/decade

   A global mean surface temperature (GMST) anomaly that is +3 °C (5.4 °F) above preindustrial levels—which is predicted to be reached by between 2054 and 2065 (assuming a continued linear rate of warming)—is likely to be incompatible with civilisation.

   Paul Beckwith explored the paper in his YouTube video titled Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly, published 11 Jun 2025, duration 0:16:18.