3 ms·
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
by 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 agoCongratulations, you've stated the theory with far more specificity and a greater degree of testability than the paper's authors managed.
- anthonyb 14y agoI'm just paraphrasing the paper. Everything that I said was in there, if you cared to look.
- InclinedPlane 14y agoI'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 agoIt'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.