
Study predicts imminent irreversible planetary collapse - Dinoguy1000
http://www.kurzweilai.net/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse
======
InclinedPlane
This has already been discussed extensively here (see:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097116>)

For the record, my vote is that this is pseudoscience. No theory, model, or
testable predictions are presented. It is a non-falsifiable idea that is
couched in such generic and vague terms that it could mean just about
anything.

~~~
methehack
"Did you read the original article or just the news story?", he asked,
exasperated.

The article that the news story references was just published in Nature, which
has been around since 1869, is peered reviewed, well-respected, oft-cited, and
has many distinguished moments, including the initial publication of Watson
and Crick's work on DNA. "pseudoscience" might be unfair. Nice object lesson
in the "social structures for doing something just aren’t there" though.

~~~
temphn
When publishing a paper, "peer review" typically means that two or three
scientists ask you for one round of revisions before publishing. It does not
mean complete replication of the source code and data analysis. It means a
cursory pass, not a complete unit test suite.

Nature and Science in particular have been forced to retract many papers
recently for failure to replicate. A short list of recent retracted Nature and
Science papers:

[http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/highly-
cited...](http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/highly-cited-
harvard-stem-cell-scientist-retracts-nature-paper/)

[http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2012/04/guest-post-
accurate-i...](http://www.genomesunzipped.org/2012/04/guest-post-accurate-
identification-of-rna-editing-sites-from-high-throughput-sequencing-data.php)

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-
fails...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-fails-to-
confirm-existence)

And here is a recent climate paper by Gergis which was retracted after the
blogosphere found flaws while attempting to replicate their work:

[http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/10/more-on-screening-in-
gerg...](http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/10/more-on-screening-in-gergis-et-
al-2012/)

All of those papers were beaten up after they were accepted because other
scientists couldn't replicate their results. Perhaps we should see whether
this too holds up to scrutiny for a few years before remaking the $100T world
economy.

~~~
scarmig
"retracted" is a bit strong: more accurate would be, put on hold temporarily
while a statistical flaw is fixed. Even the author of the blog concedes that
the overall paper could stand perfectly fine after the flaw is corrected.

It's also interesting to note how the "auditors" compare to the scientists:
while the scientists graciously send a thank you for pointing out a flaw and
get to work on fixing it, the auditors seem almost entirely focused on
crowing, getting a scalp and spreading conspiracy theories and innuendo.
Interesting.

~~~
temphn
Well, the "auditors" are called denialists and attacked from many sides --
even though they are the only ones who publish full source code, push for raw
data release, and actually try to replicate results. We are making $100T
decisions on the basis of $1M papers and closed datasets.

Regarding retraction, I think this is pretty unambiguous

<http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/>

    
    
      Dear Stephen,
    
      I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the 
      Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th 
      century warming from an Australasian temperature 
      reconstruction spanning the last millennium’
    
      An issue has been identified in the processing of the data 
      used in the study, which may affect the results. While the 
      paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data 
      were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we 
      discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the 
      final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, 
      making this statement incorrect. Although this is an 
      unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have 
      implications for the results reported in the study. The 
      journal has been contacted and the publication of the study 
      has been put on hold.
    
      This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific 
      studies through independent analysis of data and methods 
      strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has 
      been identified and the results are being re-checked.
    
      We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on 
      your ClimateAudit web site.
    
      We would like to thank you and the participants at the 
      ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which 
      also identified this data processing issue.
    
      Thanks, David Karoly
    
      Print publication of scientific study put on hold
    
      An issue has been identified in the processing of the data 
      used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century 
      warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction 
      spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael 
      Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, 
      accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
      We are currently reviewing the data and results.
    

Now, props to Karoly for being gracious in this takedown. Part of the problem
is that a scientific paper is like a monolithic binary where a bugfix means
going out and recalling every copy of the software out in the field.

So paper authors usually are very resistant to bugfixes, as they are career
ending.In this case Karoly severely damaged Gergis' career and may have hurt
his own. From a purely self-interested perspective he should have just
stonewalled the "denialists" like Michael Mann has. But he was honest as a
scientist.

Much better to move towards an open source culture where a "paper" is just the
documentation for a major version number associated with a data/code
repository.

~~~
mkramlich
> Well, the "auditors" are called denialists

because the trait they have in common is denial of climate crisis, urgency, or
climate change validity

> and attacked from many sides

because the majority of them either (a) lack relevant expertise, or (b) are
blatantly on the payroll of fossil fuel & extraction businesses, or
billionaires derived thereof. And so if you take a stance from a position
where you appear to lack credibility or objectivity, and you do it repeatedly,
and because the stakes are indeed huge and world-wide, you're going to be
attacked. fair enough.

> even though they are the only ones who publish full source code, push for
> raw data release and actually try to replicate results

utter bullshit and you know it

> and actually try to replicate results. We are making $100T decisions on the
> basis of $1M papers and closed datasets.

hint: the existing "$100T" world economy is already the result of the combined
actions of a bunch of people working from $1M papers and closed datasets. When
BP decided to do the Maconda well and Deepwater Horizon, and decided how they
did it, and weighed the risks/rewards, do you think they shared the data with
the whole world beforehand and let us all submit our vote on whether to do it
and precisely how to do it? Hell no. Repeat this pattern ad nauseum across the
entire world economy, every day, 24/7. Except if BP makes an oopsie with
Maconda the worst-case downside is ruining merely the entire Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem and fishing/tourism industry, perhaps for only 30 years, maybe --
worstcase. But in the case of climate change, the worst-case downside scenario
is fucking up the entire Earth, for everybody, potentially irreversibly.
That's bad. That's really fucking bad. And you're right we want the science on
it to be good. But we also want to make sure that it's only people with
relevant expertise who are making the recommendations, and not people with
clear financial incentives to keep their heads buried in the sand until it's
too late. You can be skeptical all you want about a doctor's recommendation,
but if given a choice between following the advice of a doctor, or a crazy old
lady across the street, I know who I'm sticking with. And we're not even
talking about only relying on one particular individual doctor, but on the
consensus view of a large majority of practicing, experienced doctors.

For a related anecdote: I've lost track of how many weather records I've heard
broken in the last few years. And I've lived in Colorado most of my life, and
am personally witnessing some of the weirdest weather patterns I've seen in
just the last year and a half. We had about 3 days of nearly constant rain
last year -- this is in arid sunny Colorado -- it flooded a basement room
because the ground was so saturated. I've witnessed many weird days with super
strong winds and unusually colored skies, winds reminiscent of downtown
Chicago. Record wildfires. Record tornado touchdowns and devastation.
Hurricanes. Iceberg melting and ice shelf collapsing/shrinkage. Is it all just
a coincidence? Just a temporary blip and will go back to normal in a few years
all by itself? Maybe. Is that the smart bet to make? Because that's what we'll
be doing. Making a bet. With the entire planet, all our our cities (especially
coastal cities) and ecosystems AND economy, all at stake. I'd rather bet on
the science folks than the fossil money folks.

------
paulsutter
This article would be a lot more credible if it mentioned timescales. Do we
have 1 year to make a change or 100? At current rates of progress, when do we
reach this tipping point?

Without at least that number, it's just a useless alarmist rant.

~~~
scarmig
"Looking towards the year 2100, models forecast that pressures on biota will
continue to increase. The co-opting of resources and energy use by humans will
continue to increase as the global population reaches 9,500,000,000 people (by
2050), and effects will be greatly exacerbated if per capita resource use also
increases. Projections for 2100 range from apopulation low of 6,200,000,000
(requiring a substantial decline in fertility rates) to 10,100,000,000
(requiring continued decline of fertility in countries that still have
fertility above replacement level) to 27,000,000,000 (if fertility remains at
2005–2010 levels; this population size is not thought to be supportable; ref.
31). Rapid climate change shows no signs of slowing. Modelling suggests that
for ,30% of Earth, the speed at which plant species will have to migrate to
keep pace with projected climate change is greater than their dispersal rate
when Earth last shifted from a glacial to an interglacial climate, and that
dispersal will be thwartedby highly fragmented landscapes. Climates found at
present on 10–48% of the planet are projected to disappear within a century,
and climates that contemporary organisms have never experienced are likely to
cover 12–39% of Earth. The mean global temperature by 2070 (or possibly a few
decades earlier) will be higher than it has been since the human species
evolved."

------
rcthompson
The article is a hodgepodge of mixed metaphors, and reading it leaves me with
the impression that the theory itself is as well.

~~~
goblin89
What about the original paper?

Edit: Removed paywalled link (there's a better one somewhere in the thread).
My point is that the article seems inaccurate, so it may be a mistake to judge
the matter by the impression you get from the it. I'm yet to read the paper
myself.

~~~
droithomme
I highly recommend everyone do as I have done: read the paper and track down
the references they state support their claims such as "43%!" and "50%!" and
determine whether or not the references cited support the claims as made. It's
an entertaining exercise.

Then, based on one's findings having done this, decide for oneself whether the
paper should be withdrawn and all 22 of the authors fired from their
positions.

~~~
Devilboy
To save everyone time, what did you find?

~~~
droithomme
Like all the advocates are saying, read the paper. To that I add follow up on
the citations.

The advocates don't go into detail about their amazing findings, they just wax
poetic about the brilliance of the paper without offering details.

Since that's clearly the accepted standard, that's exactly where I'm standing
on it as well. Does "Critical thresholds associated with habitat loss" refer
to planetary scale changes or microenvironments? Does it support a tipping
point of 50% altered planet? Read the paper to find out. That's just one
reference. There's 100 to follow through on for the most fun.

That's also the only way this can be seriously discussed. Otherwise every
single damn thing I will point out here will be nitpicked to death by the
population purge advocates. If everybody loads up on the facts then that can't
happen. So reading the paper and following all the citations is the only way
to decide for yourself. Anything advocates or critics say could be bullshit
here. People won't know unless they go see for themselves.

In this and the other thread discussing this paper, a number of people pointed
out that they did not actually have proven models that really showed planetary
doom, and it was also questioned whether 43% of the land mass on the planet is
really either farm or city. To these responses, advocates attacked them,
accused them of not reading the paper, and insisted the paper, and its
citations, did support that. None of these advocates were willing to provide
details about that.

So at this point the only way to know is to read the paper and all the
citations and decide if the advocates are right about this or not.

I didn't have to read all 100 citations fortunately to find out since the
claims are specifically footnoted.

~~~
Devilboy
So basically we are screwed.

------
scarmig
Links to the actual paper:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11018.html)

[http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012...](http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf)

------
alphasierra
Need to read the article -- my library doesn't have access yet but this seems
way too sensationalized.

I have no doubt the world will change. I don't think that we could prevent it
even if we turned off the figurative taps but there's no way that the article
advocates that the planet will not support life after this change.

Does it go into the probable losses and the mechanisms for those losses
(heat/acidification/etc)? From that we could identify probable impacts to the
nutrient cycle.

~~~
alphasierra
Ok was able to read (thanks scarmig).

Their claim is that we alter approximately 2.27 acres worth of environment to
support each person (mainly nutrients). This comes out to 40%?? of the land of
Earth being transformed and showing state change.

Through this transformation of land and our consumption of primary nutrients
we currently consume between 20-40% of the biota production and also degrade
the whole production chain.

Their claim is that at current human growth levels we will exceed 50%
transformation of the land mass and this will cause rapid, unpredictable
changes (state change) and we will reach this in 2025.

Interestingly, they claim that through greenhouse gas emissions we have
delayed this massive state change (by putting more energy into the
environment).

------
astrofinch
If radical climate change really is imminent, we should look in to
geoengineering. Technology has already saved us from a few catastrophic
predictions like this one.

------
caffeineninja
I'm having trouble deciding whether or not this is sensationalist journalism
or the truth.

 _looks up denial in the dictionary_

------
perfunctory
A pseudo-science article is at the top of the home page. hm.

------
sdm
Interesting to see this coming from such a staunchly conservative university
as SFU.

------
Randgalt
Ludicrous. Idiocy.

------
rsanchez1
"Society globally has to collectively decide that we need to drastically lower
our population very quickly."

Right, and how does Arne Mooers propose we do this? Thermonuclear war maybe?
That would be too damaging. Sterilize everyone? Not even China does that.
Maybe ask billions of people to escort themselves off the face of the Earth?
Make some Solyent Green? Global pandemic?

Maybe more people would take them seriously (and really take them seriously,
not just run around scared) if they gave us more choices than "maybe die" and
"definitely die".

~~~
droithomme
That specific phrase "drastically lower our population very quickly" is very
interesting because it appeared as exactly those words in the last article
about this paper that appeared here yesterday: [http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-
releases/2012/study-predicts-im...](http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-
releases/2012/study-predicts-imminent-irreversible-planetary-collapse.html)

I made some comments about that exact wording and was criticized because that
phrase as it is is not in the original paper, but was in the press release
about the paper, a press release apparently written by the paper's authors
since it gives them as contacts.

And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another
alarmist article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is certain if
purges do not begin.

~~~
mkramlich
> And here the phrase, not from the actual paper, appears in yet another
> ALARMIST article claiming that total irreversible planetary doom is CERTAIN
> if PURGES do not begin.

I put three key words in bold above. But I want to focus on this:

"doom is certain if purges do not begin."

Please point me to where that was said, either in the paper itself or in the
co-author's summary. You don't be able to because it doesn't exist. They
didn't say that. You said that.

I just grepped for "purge" in the paper and in the summary and article you
linked to above, and they both yielded 0 results. The paper:
[http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012...](http://www.stanford.edu/group/hadlylab/pdfs/Barnoskyetal2012.pdf)

?

I would argue that your comment -- where you falsely accused them of claiming
that doom is certain if purges do not begin --- is the one being alarmist. I
am certain of that. :P

Also, strictly speaking, one possible explanation for why you might be seeing
a seemingly growing number of recent "alarmist" articles about the climate &
population impact, etc., is because, perhaps, the folks who are studying these
areas are actually becoming increasingly alarmed. If that's happening, and
they're sharing that with us, that's a good thing. "I wish that darn burglar
alarm would stop going off every few weeks!" Well, are you more concerned
about the inconvenience of repeatedly hearing the alarm, or that your house
keeps getting robbed? :) Let's err on the side of the latter case, if any.

------
mkramlich
Here's where all the right-wing programmers on HN, with no relevant training
or expertise in climate science, geology, physics, etc., all chime in with
their own right-wing consensus view that, "Thems evil liberal hippie
scientists have an agenda to raise our taxes and fund their labs! I say it's
just mystic mumbo jumbo and bah humbug!" Meanwhile, serious mature
accomplished people with relevant expertise and years of experience in the
field, who study real data, and done lots of model tuning & analysis, and
overall have a much deeper knowledge of the physical and biological systems
involved are worried, very worried, and calling for action, and their numbers
are growing.

Given that humans can mistakes. And given that it's hard to know for sure who
exactly is right. And given the magnitude of the stakes involved, the
magnitude of the downside risk in the "bad" scenario variants, which kind of
people do you think it would be _wiser_ to believe and follow their advice? On
climate, I'm going to bet on the climate scientists, and I hope enough of the
rest of you join me, for all our sakes.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The scientific method is not "right wing". You can pretend that politically
motivated pseudoscience is science, it does not make it so, and at the end of
the day it hurts the cause of science.

We live in a world (world, not just country) where strong support for science
and reason is very much in the minority. We are so very close to the tipping
point of falling into a new dark age of superstition. And by far the easiest
way to end up in that state is to pervert and twist the scientific
establishment into supporting a specific set of ideals a priori, independent
of evidence and reason, and destroying the credibility of the scientific
establishment and indeed in the very concept of science in the process.

If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics. Not
with vitriol. Not with hatred.

You make an ad hominem attack with your first sentence. Then you make good use
of the fallacy of the excluded middle, the straw man argument, argument from
authority, and then an appeal to popularity.

You can do better. And when it comes to topics such as scientific integrity
and ethics as well as the future of human civilization we _must_ do better.

~~~
mkramlich
> The scientific method is not "right wing".

I did not say that. Quote me where I said that.

> You can pretend that politically motivated pseudoscience is science, it does
> not make it so (...)

Indeed. And calling something pseudoscience does NOT MAKE it pseudoscience.
And if you are not a scientist, especially not one in the relevant field, then
my position is that your opinion and conclusions on the matter are of much
lower weight than of those who are and who do have these qualities.

> If you want to argue a point, argue from the evidence. Not with politics.
> Not with vitriol.

Indeed. Let's let the folks with relevant experience, training and credentials
work on this issue, and let them make their recommendations to their fellow
citizens who are laymen. And then let's follow their advice on these matters.
I see way too much politics and game-playing on the part of the anti-climate-
change folks, so a large percentage of that community is at best, noise, and
at worst, suspect, in my judgement.

You are good at coming up with terms for patterns in debate. That does not
make your position on the climate change issue correct. Nor does it make my
position wrong. Nor does it make the judgments of climate scientists wrong. In
fact, it's irrelevant. What does matter is whether we listen to people with
the relevant expertise or not.

