OK, so what's the game plan?
We're doomed, so load up on ammo, water, and forget about the conservation thing because it's futile.
Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
11–20 of 84 posts
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#12Alright, 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…
Current models of the entire planetary ecosystem are admittedly quite primitive, but they often have proven to be predictive
What have they predicted?
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#13Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse ... and modem tax
Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!: prov.
[Usenet] Since Usenet first got off the ground in 1980--81, it
has grown exponentially, approximately doubling in size every
year. On the other hand, most people feel the signal-to-noise
ratio of Usenet has dropped steadily. These trends led, as far
back as mid-1983, to predictions of the imminent collapse (or
death) of the net. Ten years and numerous doublings later,
enough of these gloomy prognostications have been confounded
that the phrase “Imminent Death Of The Net Predicted!” has
become a running joke, hauled out any time someone grumbles
about the S/N ratio or the huge and steadily increasing
volume, or the possible loss of a key node or link, or the
potential for lawsuits when ignoramuses post copyrighted
material, etc., etc., etc
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#14Alright, 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…
It's not a question of whether the assertions are unsubstantiated or overblown, it's that they're sufficiently vague as to be unscientific. Things like:
Therefore, the plausibility of a future planetary state shift seems high, even though considerable uncertainty remains about whether it is inevitable and, if so, how far in the future it may be.
don't seem much more useful than my horoscope for today:
Today you may be wondering just how much you should get involved in a certain conflict between family members or in your career. There's a lot of pressure on you to find an answer to this problem. But all you have to do is not take sides and everything should work out fine. You may finally realize that it's probably best to just let things happen for once.
I mean, what would it mean in real-world terms for either of those to be wrong?
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#15I hate being that person, but I have to honestly ask, if the scientific community as a whole cannot agree on exactly how much effect humans personally cause to the environment today, how can anyone claim with the level of surety that these people seem to have that something major is going to happen, that humans can mitigate, within a lifetime?
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Current models of the entire planetary ecosystem are admittedly quite primitive, but they often have proven to be predictive What have they predicted?
I don't know, but I also want to point out that "often proven to be predictive" is pretty weak cheese.
I mean, I have a model for predicting the result of coin flips which is often predictive. It's called "heads".
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#17"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…
The study doesn't actually say anything of the sort anyway, what it says is a typically vague:
" It is still unknown, however, what percentage of Earth’s ecosystems actually have to be transformed to new states by the direct action of humans for rapid state changes to be triggered in remaining ‘natural’ systems. That percentage may be knowable only in retrospect, but, judging from landscape-scale observations and simulations66, 67, 68, 69, 70, it can reasonably be expected to be as low as 50% (ref. 68), or even lower if the interaction effects of many local ecosystem transformations cause sufficiently large global-scale forcings to emerge."
or in other words, "fuck, I dunno, half?"
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#18Alright, 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"
But scary headlines that link to the article: Free
Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#19Re: Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Current models of the entire planetary ecosystem are admittedly quite primitive, but they often have proven to be predictive What have they predicted?
I don't know, but I also want to point out that "often proven to be predictive" is pretty weak cheese. I mean, I have a model for predicting the result of coin flips which is often predictive. It's called "heads".
Are you suggesting that models are not a useful scientific tool?