3 ms·
So what does it mean? A lead person with the project said it, and it was the only quote from that person that made it into the article. The boundaries are expli
by abeppu 2y ago
So what does it mean? A lead person with the project said it, and it was the only quote from that person that made it into the article. The boundaries are explicitly said to not be known tipping points, so we don't know that some new mechanisms become dominant outside of them. We're only told that leaving these bounds is "higher-risk" and that inside the bounds is some "safe zone" but the actual risk or the meaning of "safety" in this context are not communicated.
This is a leading science publication reporting on an apparently notable finding about how serious the current situation is, but the actual information presented is either vague or hyperbolic.
Note, I'm not saying the situation isn't serious, or that drastic action isn't warranted. I'm saying this piece, discussing this work, is at minimum sloppy and unclear, and I think this is at the level of being counter-productive. When the situation is serious, try speaking clearly rather than in shrill metaphor.
- abeppu 2y agoFor example, if they had said, "given this trend in ocean acidification, we think the combined die-offs in coral reef ecosystems, kelp-forest areas and reduced reproduction rate of these family of plankton, the rate at which marine ecosystems sequester carbon will decrease by k% in 10 years, which would be equivalent in impact to <list of countries> abandoning their 2050 emissions targets" that would be a clear way to explain the scale of one dimension of the impact. Or "the decrease in marine biodiversity on <whatever measure> over the next decade would be equivalent to k times the losses from commercial fishing over the past decade". Or something more concrete than "we're headed to a bad state."