First the link to this week’s complete list.
Zhao 2010 is beautifully dismantled by Samanta and Medlyn. On top of their thorough analysis I note that Zhao‘s figure 1 shows no discernible trend whatsoever except for that inevitably introduced into any limited series by the arbitrary choice of start and end points. See Brignell on linear trends and Brignell on finite windows:
“I have made my views known on the dangers of fitting straight lines. In any finite sample there is always a linear trend, even if it does not exist in the population from which it is drawn. Having looked critically at dozens of situations in applied physics, I accept the principle that is implicit in the writings of Daly and others that If you can’t see it, it ain’t there!” [Brignell]
There is another article on antibiotics, this one by Blaser. It seems that finally nature at least has tuned in onto the theme. Let’s hope it will filter down with time.
Farrell and Rauhut nicely duplicate my comments on Lorenz 2011 (List of 2011-06-03).
Hsiang and Solow seem to ignore the fact that El Niño is a cyclic phenomenon. Conflicts need a trigger as well as a cause, WWI being case in point. Climate may well be or supply that trigger. So if the number of underlying causes and of conflicts waiting to break out stays constant, actual breakouts will naturally fluctuate, but there are no grounds whatsoever to extrapolate that to a climatic trend. On top of that even the premise is doubtful. In Hsiang‘s supplementary figure 9 I see no trend whatsoever except that introduced by two extreme points bottom left and top right. Unfortunately his data aren’t given in a format I can read, so I can’t redo his regression.
It seems I ought to read the Steiner biography by Zander. He seems to have come to the same obvious conclusions I did from his official biography and some of his writings. I recommend his course on farming to anyone in need of some light entertainment and humour.
Well hidden, right at the back of their conclusions, Hoffman et al. note “It is worth mentioning that our results do not provide evidence against the role of nature.”