Another great video and article from Sabine. So it seems like yes they do, and they can give us useful indicative estimates like lower bounds for the increased

Another great video and article from Sabine. So it seems like yes they do, and they can give us useful indicative estimates like lower bounds for the increased likelihood of extreme events, but there are still huge unknowns. Honestly I’m amazed we can get the estimates we do, given that this particular field of analysis is so young. I’m not as pessimistic about the usefulness of this data though. Knowing that these events are becoming much more likely and having an understanding of why is useful work. There are always unknowns, and now there are fewer of them. That’s good. Take the estimate that bush fires in Australia are now at least twice as likely than they were. Sure it would be better to know if they are twice, three times or 10x as likely, but knowing they are at least twice as likely and why that is the case is still useful data.