Was the recent Swiss avalanche’s cause the last, triggering snowflake, or the billions of snowflakes before it?
There’s been a slight increase in the number of PNAS studies that included the “catastrophic” search word from October 2016 to mid-January 2018 compared to the January 2014 to mid-April 2015 period referenced in How well can catastrophes be predicted?.
What are the drivers?
- Has new evidence been found to reinterpret past catastrophes? For example, Estimates of the magnitudes of major marine mass extinctions in earth history.
- Has research of catastrophic situations increased? For example, Endothelium-targeted overexpression of heat shock protein 27 ameliorates blood–brain barrier disruption after ischemic brain injury.
- Have more realistic models of catastrophes been developed? For example, System crash as dynamics of complex networks.
- Has “if it bleeds it leads” prediction sensationalism overtaken PNAS researchers and sponsors? For example, Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines.
Or is the main driver something else?
