A question. When we get news like this from the Beeb, or the related stories about the faster-, no, much-faster-than-expected melting of glaciers, Artic and Antarctic ice sheets, etc., it's not that each study revises expectations already revised in light of the most recent-but-one study by some other body, is it? Or is it?I ask this both because the turboshrinkage of the Arctic ice has been on my mind, and because something similar seems to be going on in the world economy. Does each new unexpected rise in unemployment or fall in exports (etc., etc.) report essentially the same downturn, as it were from a different angle, or is each the sign of a further, deeper downturn? I mean if something - water levels, savings rates, whatever - were constant for each month of year x at 100 and then, in year x + 1, were constant for each month at 80 although forecasts had been for a constant 90, wouldn't we be reading reports each month that levels were down by 10 more than expected over the year before, which might lead one to conclude, falsely, that the levels were progressively worsening? Or to put it another way, if ten people tell us their town is flooded, one after another, it's still possible it was just one town which inundated, no? And if ten different researchers tell us they had not thought the town would be flooded, one after another, it's still just one town... right?
Don't mean to be pollyanish here - clearly both climatic and economic problems affect all towns by now - just clear...
