By replacing thousands of equations with just one, ecology modelers can more accurately assess how close fragile environments are to a disastrous “tipping point.”…
A recent breakthrough in the mathematical modeling of ecosystems could make it possible for the first time to estimate precisely how close ecosystems are to disastrous tipping points. The applicability of the discovery is still sharply limited, but Jianxi Gao, a network scientist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who led the research, is hopeful that in time it will be possible for scientists and policymakers to identify the ecosystems most at risk and tailor interventions for them.
Last August in Nature Ecology & Evolution, Gao and an international team of colleagues showed how to squish thousands of calculations into just one by collapsing all the interactions into a single weighted average. That simplification reduces the formidable complexity to just a handful of key drivers.
“With one equation, we know everything,” Gao said. “Before, you have a feeling. Now you have a number.”
Putting a number on it is one thing; getting a clock on it is another.
Quanta
Simpler Math Predicts How Close Ecosystems Are to Collapse
Quanta
Simpler Math Predicts How Close Ecosystems Are to Collapse
Anna Gibbs
10 comments:
Let me guess... we have ten years to take action.
Having accurate numbers and putting clock on it would make little difference. The degree of lifestyle change needed makes an effective response politically impossible, especially since international cooperation is required and the developed countries would have to change they most since their cultures and policies consitute the major source of externalities.
See Yves Smith's intro to the following on this.
What If the World Cannot Save the World from Climate Change?
And "net zero" is a capitalist solution that benefits you know who. Same with other market-based approaches. No silver bullets.
Real cost of net zero carbon could be mass hunger
The result will likely be mass migration from the developing world resulting in a "security risk" that the militaries of the developed nations are preparing for.
Ten years is an accurate number. Notice how it gets recycled by the media.
Enjoy your life.
Let Mother Nature sort it out.
Because homo sapiens will be receiving an ass-whooping.
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/17968-brazil-on-track-for-record-soybean-crop
From rainforest to soybeans. Is that too complicated for you STEM guys?
Can’t eat rainforest…
There are many horrible things in the rainforest that can eat humans.
There are reasons why people in the tropics prefer to dwell near the coast...
We need essentially to move to something much closer to command economies in the North, guaranteeing employment to workers, and constraining incomes at the top through "demo-taxes". This can allow more safe leisure time, and in turn gives resource space and sufficient sovereignty to southern countries to develop more equitably.
In the north, we need to see and end to superyachts, 3rd cars, The only way to decarbonize many of the most energy intensive goods and services fast enough is for wealthy people to change their behavior and consume less of them.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to accomplish this. The first is by reducing overall income inequality with, say, progressive income taxes or wealth taxes. Since income inequality produces a whole host of other problems, beyond disproportionate consumption of energy intensive good and services, this seems like a promising approach.
The second is to reduce energy inequality within particular categories. This can be done with targeted taxation — for example, a tax on first-class flying, cruises and yachts, vacation packages, or other energy intensive luxury goods. It can also be done with rezoning, densification, public and multimodal transportation, and other policies that reduce the need for energy intensive single-occupant-vehicle travel.
So, we need to become old fashioned lefties, but keep enough market elements to constrain public corruption and keep pricing honest.
We need essentially to consume less energy. We're going to do it the hard way.
Post a Comment