Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36245947›Full record

ArticleNatural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands)2023

Assessing natural global catastrophic risks.

Seth D Baum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Natural hazards (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Seth D BaumGlobal Catastrophic Risk Institute, PO Box 40364, Washington, DC 20016 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2429-5232

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk of global catastrophe from natural sources may be significantly larger than previous analyses have found. In the study of global catastrophic risk (GCR), one line of thinking posits that deep human history renders natural GCRs insignificant. Essentially, the fact that natural hazards did not cause human extinction at any previous time makes it unlikely that they would do so now. This paper finds flaws in this argument, refines the theory of natural GCR, analyzes the space of natural GCRs, and presents implications for decision-making and research. The paper analyzes natural climate change, natural pandemics, near-Earth objects (asteroids, comets, and meteors), space weather (coronal mass ejections, solar flares, and solar particle events), stellar explosions (gamma-ray bursts and supernovae), and volcanic eruptions. Almost all natural GCR scenarios involve important interactions between the natural hazard and human civilization. Several natural GCR scenarios may have high ongoing probability. Deep human history provides little information about the resilience of modern global civilization to natural global catastrophes. The natural GCRs should not be dismissed on grounds of deep human history. Work on natural GCRs should account for their important human dimensions. A case can even be made for abandoning the distinction between natural and anthropogenic GCR.

Indexed as

Climate changeGlobal catastrophic riskNear-earth objectsPandemicsSpace weatherStellar explosionsVolcanic eruptions

Identifiers

PMID36245947
PMCPMC9553633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.