2 ms·

I will admit I didn't read the article, which now that I look, it's from a scientific journal. So you're right, this article doesn't apply to my statement. Any

• klyrs 7y ago
  As others have pointed out, the headline is trash. My takeaway is that the melting ice sheets introduce greater uncertainty to climate models. Loss of uncertainty means that our ability to reason about the climate is diminished. In sports terms: imagine that the star players on two teams are all suddenly taken out. Suddenly it's a rookie game, and there's barely any stats to go by. Do you bet more aggressively, or more conservatively? In this case, the "conservative" bet is to pump the brakes on the most significant anthropogenic source of climate change: greenhouse gasses such as carbon emissions. The "aggressive" bet is to continue subsidizing the profiteering oil/gas/coal industries. Case in point, some of the most little-c conservative institutions are treating climate change as real: insurance companies, and the US military. Insurance companies because they can't survive catastrophic losses, and the military because climate change will cause global instability. Their reasoning is a result of pragmatism, not politics.
  • baking 7y ago
    A better analogy is that one of your star players (ice sheet stability) maybe isn't as good as you thought he was (turns out snow accumulation > surface melting is not the whole picture) and has some major potential weaknesses (marine ice sheet instability and marine ice cliff instability) which you probably really need to investigate or you might be losing in the big game. Also, call your bookie and adjust your bets appropriately.