Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
If it turns out to be as reliable as they claim, Fryxell et al. demonstrate a valuable method to derive important biological and political/regulatory conclusions from easily available data.
As so often happens nowadays, Luca et al. show us nothing but tables of computed, corrected, and meddled-with parameters, least of all any real data. If the effect was as they state, then what we’d expect to see would be a decisive step, quite probably overshooting a bit and regressing back to the mean. Contrary to that Ludwig shows us quite the opposite. There is a continuous, exactly linear trend over several years and where we would look for the step, there is absolutely nothing at all, if anything a very slight outlier in the wrong direction. Much as I would have wanted it to, as the proposed measure is as non-intrusive as it gets, there really seems to be absolutely nothing in their claim. Shame, but that’s how it seems to be.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a) temperatures have been rising since about 1850, that b) humans may be in part, possibly a large part, responsible for this, and that c) this rise may continue into the near future. What there is contention about, is the rate and possible size of this further rise – will it turn out self-limiting or not? Another point in dispute are all the doom and gloom stories suggesting any change will have to be for the worst. Once again one of those is being debunked, this time by Rovere et al. showing that Atlantic storms in the warm Eemian were not as strong as claimed and probably no stronger than today.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum