Scirntists ......i can ever ever trust them fuckers .....i personally think they smoke copious........ and i mean copious amount of weed /ganja/mary jane/tins/ak 47/G7/pot....whatever ypu want to call it .....them fuckers smoke buckets of that shit .......so i do not trust them .........they are over paid........... what the fuck they going to do with all that research cash ..........buy weed and get fucking high ........
Oops, Scientists May Have Severely Miscalculated How Many Humans Are on Earth
Darren Orf
3 min read
Are There More Humans on Earth Than We Thought?Alexander Spatari - Getty Images
"Hearst Magazines and Yahoo may earn commission or revenue on some items through these links."
While most estimates place the current human population at around 8.2 billion, a new study suggests we might be vastly underrepresenting rural areas.
By analyzing 300 rural dam projects across 35 countries, researchers from Aalto University in Finland found discrepancies among these independent population counts and other population data gathered between 1975 and 2010.
Such underreporting could have consequences in terms of resource allocation within a country, but other experts remain skeptical that decades of population counting could be off by such a wide margin.
Homo sapiens is the most successful mammalian species in Earth history, and it’s not even close. The species thrives on nearly every continent, in a variety of adverse conditions, and outnumbers the second-place contender—the rat—by at least a cool billion. However, a new study suggests that the impressive nature of humanity’s proliferation may have been vastly underreported.
Most estimates place Earth’s human population at around 8.2 billion, but Josias Láng-Ritter—a postdoctoral researcher at Aalto University in Finland and lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Communications—claims that these estimates could be underrepresenting rural areas by a significant margin.
“We were surprised to find that the actual population living in rural areas is much higher than the global population data indicates—depending on the dataset, rural populations have been underestimated by between 53 percent to 84 percent over the period studied,” Láng-Ritter said in a press statement. “The results are remarkable, as these datasets have been used in thousands of studies and extensively support decision-making, yet their accuracy has not been systematically evaluated.”
How exactly do you test the accuracy of global datasets used to derive population totals in the first place? Well, with a background in water resource management, Láng-Ritter looked at a different kind of population data gathered from rural dam projects—300 such projects across 35 countries, to be precise. This data focused on the years 1975 to 2010, and these population tallies provided a significant dataset to check against other population totals calculated by organizations like WorldPop, GWP, GRUMP, LandScan, and GHS-POP (which were also analyzed in this study).
“When dams are built, large areas are flooded and people need to be relocated,” Láng-Ritter said in a press statement. “The relocated population is usually counted precisely because dam companies pay compensation to those affected. Unlike global population datasets, such local impact statements provide comprehensive, on-the-ground population counts that are not skewed by administrative boundaries. We then combined these with spatial information from satellite imagery.”
No comments:
Post a Comment