Keine verlässlichen Temperaturtrends im Nordpazifik, Nordatlantik und südlichen Indik

Augenmaß statt Hysterie, das fordern immer mehr Wissenschaftler. Viel zu lange haben Medien und bestimmte Wissenschaftler gemeinsam die Alarmschiene bedient und damit Aufmerksamkeit und Geldmittel zu erzielen. Aber nicht jedes Problem muss als Drama dargestellt werden. Gibt es nicht auch einen Mittelweg, um Dinge wie vernünftige Menschen mit kühlem Kopf zu regeln? Stewart Brand übt auf AEON Kritik an der weit verbreiteten Hysterie zum angeblichen Massenaussterben:

Rethinking extinction: The idea that we are edging up to a mass extinction is not just wrong – it’s a recipe for panic and paralysis
[...] Viewing every conservation issue through the lens of extinction threat is simplistic and usually irrelevant. Worse, it introduces an emotional charge that makes the problem seem cosmic and overwhelming rather than local and solvable. It’s as if the entire field of human medicine were treated solely as a matter of death prevention. Every session with a doctor would begin: ‘Well, you’re dying. Let’s see if we can do anything to slow that down a little.’ [...] Many now assume that we are in the midst of a human-caused ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ to rival the one that killed off the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But we’re not. The five historic mass extinctions eliminated 70 per cent or more of all species in a relatively short time. That is not going on now. ‘If all currently threatened species were to go extinct in a few centuries and that rate continued,’ began a recent Nature magazine introduction to a survey of wildlife losses, ‘the sixth mass extinction could come in a couple of centuries or a few millennia.’ [...] The range of dates in that statement reflects profound uncertainty about the current rate of extinction. Estimates vary a hundred-fold – from 0.01 per cent to 1 per cent of species being lost per decade.

Ganzen Artikel auf auf AEON lesen.

Das gefiel den Hysterikern natürlich gar nicht. Sie bekamen in Science Platz, um weiter zu dramatisieren.

——————–

Zwischen 1980 und 2000 ist die Basis des heutigen Klimaalarmismus gelegt worden. Damals stiegen die globalen Temperaturen um ein halbes Grad an. Nicht auszudenken, wenn es so weitergegangen wäre. Aber die Erwärmung verlangsamte sich plötzlich, stoppte sogar teilweise. Hiatus, Slowdown. Heute weiß man: Ozeanzyklen von 60 Jahren Länge modulieren die Langzeittrends. Da wäre es falsch, die Flanken der Ozeanzyklen als Langzeittrend zu interpretieren – was aber genau passiert ist. Nun gilt es den Schaden zu begrenzen. Tia et al. veröffentlichten im Februar 2018 eine Arbeit, in der sie die Temperaturtrends der Meeresoberflächen während der letzten 130 Jahre analysieren:

Investigating the Uncertainty in Global SST Trends Due to Internal Variations Using an Improved Trend Estimator
A new criterion was proposed recently to measure the influence of internal variations on secular trends in a time series. When the magnitude of the trend is greater than a theoretical threshold that scales the influence from internal variations, the sign of the estimated trend can be interpreted as the underlying long‐term change. Otherwise, the sign may depend on the period chosen. An improved least squares method is developed here to further reduce the theoretical threshold and is applied to eight sea surface temperature (SST) data sets covering the period 1881–2013 to investigate whether there are robust trends in global SSTs. It is found that the warming trends in the western boundary regions, the South Atlantic, and the tropical and southern‐most Indian Ocean are robust. However, robust trends are not found in the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, or the South Indian Ocean. The globally averaged SST and Indian Ocean Dipole indices are found to have robustly increased, whereas trends in the zonal SST gradient across the equatorial Pacific, Niño 3.4 SST, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation indices are within the uncertainty range associated with internal variations. These results indicate that great care is required when interpreting SST trends using the available records in certain regions and indices. It is worth noting that the theoretical threshold can be strongly influenced by low‐frequency oscillations, and the above conclusions are based on the assumption that trends are linear. Caution should be exercised when applying the theoretical threshold criterion to real data.

Während die Erwärmungstrends im Südatlantik und tropischen Indik robst sind, konnten die Autoren keine statistisch verlässlichen Trends im Nordpazifik, Nordatlantik und südlichen Indik finden.