Megadisasters: Predicting the next catastrophe [Hardcover]

In a nearly perfect world, impending disasters could be predicted in such an accurate and timely manner that affected people could be safely evacuated and human lives would be saved. But we don't live in such a world and terrible disasters do occur, often unexpectedly and with dreadful consequences. In an effort to remedy this situation, scientists in different fields are attempting to understand the various phenomena that can lead to such disasters in order to try and predict their occurrences. In this book, eight types of disasters are examined: tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, rapid climate change, cosmic impacts, financial crashes and pandemics. The author, an applied mathematician with specialization in differential equations, is certainly in his element in discussing most of these cases. Each disaster is covered in its own chapter. In each case, the author gives a brief historical background, presents the scientists who are involved and summarizes the progress, or lack thereof, that has been made. It becomes very clear that some disasters are more predictable than others. Also, the power and limitations of mathematical modelling are well illustrated. The writing style is clear, authoritative, level-headed, accessible and engaging. This book can be enjoyed by anyone, especially those interested in science's efforts in predicting disasters with the ultimate purpose of saving human lives.

The author, a professor of mathematics, provides a general review of scientific efforts to predict a variety of phenomena, including: tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, climate change, asteroid and comet impacts with Earth, financial crashes, and pandemics. The author also briefly discusses the nature and limits of mathematical models.

The book is written for the general public, and the reader does not need to have any particular training or experience in mathematics or science to follow the author's discussion. The book provides a basic introduction to the subject matter for readers who are not trained or experienced in mathematics or science. Anyone interested in a more detailed, technical discussion of mathematical models and scientific predictions of various phenomena should look elsewhere.

One example of a more technical discussion of mathematical models and scientific predictions is Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature (Island Press, 1990), an anthology edited by Daniel Sarewitz; Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Radford Byerly, Jr.

I can't give this fairly solid book a fourth star only because I expect a lot from the author; there could've been a little more than what shows up here in this book.

The author is very intelligent and open-minded about science (verging on a veritable 'philosophy of science' angle) and he's been brave enough to have written another of his books on Fomenko (with whom he shares some of the same upper-level physics and mathematics expertise - namely differential equations and their use in celestial mechanics and optimization problems). Brave because doing so risked career suicide. No one is allowed to touch Fomenko. Period. This being said, Diacu seems very aware about methodological and experimental honesty or dishonesty issues - as is clear in the chapter on climate change - and the quite flexible borders between science and pseudo-science on both sides of the coin: those holy theorems overdue for revision and working hypotheses unduly held in distain. This is a brave quality in Diacu. He's a brave writer. Brings to mind Poincare's attitude toward both positivists and dogmatic realists. So many "scientists" are merely conventionalists (unquestioning of the dominate paradigm) who wear the badge of scientist yet lack the necessary loyalty to the true open-mindedness which makes science "Science". It is with this sort of sobriety that he takes a position of authority to say what has been only prematurely labeled as science when it comes to prediction and what is, really and truly, more cutting edge in the science of tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, climate change, meteor impact, economic breakdown, and pandemics. Though "cutting edge" by no means indicates completely exhaustive in this account, he does cover a few of the brighter and more well-known modern attempts - various innovators which are bent on taking uncertainty to task with impressive tools and methods.

Why should one find his work here just a little disappointing? Here it is: I silently hoped that Diacu would address the fringe hypothesis of 'earth-expansion' and its 200 year history which is still alive and kicking. Albeit, kicking a bit feverishly. Taking earth-expansion seriously would certainly play a pivotal role in explanation, research, and prediction of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and climate change and illustrate that there have been attempts to give a more unifying account of unexpected geophysical change. But, alas, it was omitted. This omission is a little flunky for Diacu's caliber. For the same reason that a historian refusing a serious dialogue with Fomenko's work is certainly evidence of academic isolationism. (So too for the geosciences and its spurned earth-expansion counterpoint.) Perhaps my somewhat unrealistic expectation that he go here was due to a belief that he would leave no stone unturned in his investigations. Earth-expansion theory is a huge stone. Worth lifting. This stone's importance is reinforced by the higher criteria opened up by the logic and methodology and philosophy of science domains - which leaves no new or old guess out of the scuffle and is especially forgiving when forays broach the large-scale (or extremely fuzzy quantum scale) speculative domains (astrophysics, quantum physics, geoscience (especially geodesy)) - where measurement and repeatability are not the strongest point. Ie, where measurement is very often a disservice to naked and honest steadfast methodologies and yet flouted as incontestable after some broad observations, speculative unification, or maybe even two trials. And of all the counterpoints to dominating theories, earth-expansion is among the larger, more comprehensive paradigms known with quite a healthy history of supporters and still a few modern hold-outs.

The particular beef Diacu ought to take issue with in all these 'separate domains of catastrophes' is their lack of real experimentally proven predictive power AS A SYMPTOM (*) of the sort of methodology employed to establish "facts" in the field. This is quite the case in archaeology, philology, migration theory, etc. And how much more is this the case in geophysics? Even as we watch the very satellites we trust to make measurements (eg, recently GRACE) exhibit a great deal of software correction, a great deal less repeatability and cross-analysis, or only a handful of years of data to be sourced to make ludicrously firm claims - as is frequently done in academic papers? Is it really so hard to believe that some of the underlying assumptions in the contemporary account of geophysicists are patently premature? As such, it is hard to imagine why so much is taken for granted when from the final fruit of these disciplines we see Diacu struggling with how much these disciplines fail to bring results on their own basis. Predictive power nor geoscience unification.

Nobody's expecting determinism, yet neither is anyone asking for the opiate of hegemony science. Perhaps they are, but deep down, nobody is.

If in the second edition he at least outlines the ramifications of seriously entertaining earth-expansion, then I'll gladly revise the rating to 5 stars. Without it. It's a solid 3 stars. The "quest for a safer planet" intention will not serve science when, at the expense of professionals who've devoted their lives to geoscience, we ignore the few voices who've upheld an incredible account of evidence pointing elsewhere. If he hasn't committed career suicide already, perhaps he's willing to go the full distance and consider the scientific accounts which completely upset our idea of the world. At least as much as the New Chronology.