Sorry long reply again here, I hope you take that as a compliment, thanks for prompting me to reply. There are a few things I would say, firstly that the nine planetary boundaries model shown is way too complex to produce reliable results (I say that as a long practicing model based systesm engineer).
Secondly, the temperature change is a symptom, not the source causing the symptoms, which is the way we use energy.
Note 2050 is an estimate based on linear temperature rise, when actually it is exponential, and no-one yet knows the coefficients yet describing the curve.
Getting those coefficients accurate will only be possible after the fact, when the deed is done. Then what would be the point, unless some future beings might do it as maybe a post mortem.
So the rate of temperature rise is unpredictable as stands, and actually pretty useless as a control stimulus of any model.
The closest we might get to being able to predict what is to come in the future, is by characterising the real driver of the temperature rise, the control stimuli.
Someone else here mentioned thermodynamics. Thermodynamics can't be strictly applied to the Earth energy system, because it is not closed.
But there are some things we can say in terms of thermodynamics:
Converting materials or fields of Earth to energy we use has to result in temperature rise, just as a result of the extraction process.
There are ways to measure and monitor this numerically, if we were concerned enough to make the effort.
Converting the energy from the sun to anything except heat has to result in less temperature than would have occured if the sun had just irradiated rock, or any other surface that heats.
So when we use solar farms of any kind, and put that energy to use as electricity, or to generate hydrogen, less temperature rise has to occur than would have happened if we did not use the sun energy that might have otherwise just heated Earth.
Notice nature plays a part via biomass, and photosynthesis, this has to result in Earth cooling also. The more biomass, the more cooling.
But also, the more solar farms, the more cooling.
Again there are ways to measure and quantify these effects to put numerical values on them, so as to monitor their effects, and extrapolate to what might be in the future.
Since the use of solar has the opposite temperature effect of extraction, it follows that the ratio of solar vs extracted energy consumption / generation is the logical control stimulus that can be manipulated to see the effects on temperature.
The reason we don't see this happening as yet, are not technical imho, but financial, imho.
I won't go into why here, just post a link below, but maybe you can see now a simpler way to get a better handle on temperature rise, in a much less arguable way, than we have seen happen with climate models over the years.
We have to stop being so fixated with the complex symptoms, and become more interested in the much simpler source, it seems to me.
To me it looks like financial inflation will brings things to a head much earlier than most folk realise, since there still seems little official acknowledgement that nature now plays a big part in inflation. In fact we are already too late to implement things like nuclear, we don't have even seven years, we have one or two years, before money becomes useless, even to put in the required domestic and community solar hydrogen installations.
Hence why I agree with McB, hand it to Ai and let it take control, we need a miracle, and Ai looks like the miracle to me.
