Live data from Hacker News

Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

sfu.ca

1–10 of 84 posts

Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

#3
Alright, I've just read the paper and I'm surprised that it got published in Nature. I mean, as far as crystal ball gazing goes, saying that "shit might, y'know, change in the future and stuff" is pretty reliable, but I'm not really sure how it counts as science.

Link to actual paper (may or may not work outside the ivory tower I currently occupy, someone please check and let me know): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature1...

edit: Apparently it doesn't, but try this one (pdf) http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012...

Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

#4

Alright, I've just read the paper and I'm surprised that it got published in Nature. I mean, as far as crystal ball gazing goes, saying that "shit might, y'know, change in the future and stuff" is pretty reliable, but I'm not really sure how it counts as science . Link to actual paper (may or may not work outside the ivory tower I currently occupy, someone please check and let me know): http://www.nature.com/nature/j…

The link does not work outside the ivory tower. (But thanks for posting anyway.)

Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

#6

Alright, I've just read the paper and I'm surprised that it got published in Nature. I mean, as far as crystal ball gazing goes, saying that "shit might, y'know, change in the future and stuff" is pretty reliable, but I'm not really sure how it counts as science . Link to actual paper (may or may not work outside the ivory tower I currently occupy, someone please check and let me know): http://www.nature.com/nature/j…

"Instant access to this article: $32"

Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

#9

Alright, I've just read the paper and I'm surprised that it got published in Nature. I mean, as far as crystal ball gazing goes, saying that "shit might, y'know, change in the future and stuff" is pretty reliable, but I'm not really sure how it counts as science . Link to actual paper (may or may not work outside the ivory tower I currently occupy, someone please check and let me know): http://www.nature.com/nature/j…

The paper is pretty calm and careful about predictions, as far as I can tell. What assertion from the paper (which is behind a paywall at Nature.com, but can be found free online via sneaky methods like googling the title), specifically, do you feel is unsubstantiated or overblown?

Current models of the entire planetary ecosystem are admittedly quite primitive, but they often have proven to be predictive. That which is predictive and reproduce-able is science, by my reckoning. And, this paper is drawing on expertise across an extremely broad spectrum of real research, not merely models or educated guesstimation.

Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse

#10
"This study concludes we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth’s surface or we won’t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse. We’ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, making Earth increasingly susceptible to an environmental epidemic."

I'm guessing this really means the land surface of the Earth, rather than the Earth's surface as a whole, as ~70% of the Earth's surface is water. Without access to the paper itself, I can't say whether or not this is an issue with the "media release" or the research itself, of course.

Post reply on HN