4 ms·

"the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye" seems like a fairly straightforward clearcut negative

"the planet’s ecosystems, as we know them, could irreversibly collapse in the proverbial blink of an eye" seems like a fairly straightforward clearcut negative consequence. They're worried that ecosystems (those networks of interacting species) will collapse (meaning the ecosystem dynamics change and the vast majority of the species who rely on and compose the ecosystem go extinct).

apsec112 14y ago
That seems like obvious nonsense - eg. mile-wide asteroid impacts, which are much larger in terms of energy release than all nuclear arsenals combined, don't cause mass extinctions. But it at least gets credit for being a specific claim. Just saying "collapse" is vague, and could arguably apply to just about anything.
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Oh for fuck's sake, just read the paper: BOX 1: Past planetary-scale critical transitions and state shifts Last glacial–interglacial transition18,24. The critical transition was a rapid warm–cold–warm fluctuation in climate between 14,300 and 11,000 yr ago, and the most pronounced biotic changes occurred between 12,900 and 11,300 yr ago24,27,30,54. The major biotic changes were the extinction of about half of the species of large-bodied mammals, several species of large birds and reptiles, and a few species of small animals30; a significant decrease in local and regional biodiversity as geographic ranges shifted individualistically, which also resulted in novel species assemblages37,49,53,54; and a global increase in human biomass and spread of humans to all continents27. The pre-transition global state was a glacial stage that lasted about 100,000 yr and the post-transition global state is an interglacial that Earth has been in for approximately 11,000 yr. The global forcings were orbitally induced, cyclic variations in solar insolation that caused rapid global warming. Direct and indirect of effects of humans probably contributed to extinctions of megafauna and subsequent ecological restructuring. So: collapse means widespread species and biosphere change, extinctions of large mammals. All this with relatively small forcings due to solar radiation changes.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Congratulations, you've stated the theory with far more specificity and a greater degree of testability than the paper's authors managed.
    - anthonyb 14y ago
      I'm just paraphrasing the paper. Everything that I said was in there, if you cared to look.
      - InclinedPlane 14y ago
        I've read it. The purpose of a scientific paper is to state its assumptions and suppositions clearly. The fact that this one doesn't even manage that is a big knock against it, aside from the fact that the basic "theory" is fundamentally not falsifiable.
        anthonyb 14y ago
        It's really not that hard to work out. That you don't know what "collapse" means in the context of an ecosystem is not the fault of the paper. It's like arguing that a CS paper doesn't define what "compiler" means; there is a basic level of literacy expected when reading scientific papers.

apsec112 14y ago

That seems like obvious nonsense - eg. mile-wide asteroid impacts, which are much larger in terms of energy release than all nuclear arsenals combined, don't cause mass extinctions. But it at least gets credit for being a specific claim. Just saying "collapse" is vague, and could arguably apply to just about anything.

anthonyb 14y ago
Oh for fuck's sake, just read the paper: BOX 1: Past planetary-scale critical transitions and state shifts Last glacial–interglacial transition18,24. The critical transition was a rapid warm–cold–warm fluctuation in climate between 14,300 and 11,000 yr ago, and the most pronounced biotic changes occurred between 12,900 and 11,300 yr ago24,27,30,54. The major biotic changes were the extinction of about half of the species of large-bodied mammals, several species of large birds and reptiles, and a few species of small animals30; a significant decrease in local and regional biodiversity as geographic ranges shifted individualistically, which also resulted in novel species assemblages37,49,53,54; and a global increase in human biomass and spread of humans to all continents27. The pre-transition global state was a glacial stage that lasted about 100,000 yr and the post-transition global state is an interglacial that Earth has been in for approximately 11,000 yr. The global forcings were orbitally induced, cyclic variations in solar insolation that caused rapid global warming. Direct and indirect of effects of humans probably contributed to extinctions of megafauna and subsequent ecological restructuring. So: collapse means widespread species and biosphere change, extinctions of large mammals. All this with relatively small forcings due to solar radiation changes.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Congratulations, you've stated the theory with far more specificity and a greater degree of testability than the paper's authors managed.
  - anthonyb 14y ago
    I'm just paraphrasing the paper. Everything that I said was in there, if you cared to look.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      I've read it. The purpose of a scientific paper is to state its assumptions and suppositions clearly. The fact that this one doesn't even manage that is a big knock against it, aside from the fact that the basic "theory" is fundamentally not falsifiable.
      - anthonyb 14y ago
        It's really not that hard to work out. That you don't know what "collapse" means in the context of an ecosystem is not the fault of the paper. It's like arguing that a CS paper doesn't define what "compiler" means; there is a basic level of literacy expected when reading scientific papers.