3 ms·
> >...Thus, projections of future Antarctic sea-ice extent and the associated climate implications are highly uncertain. > Point is - we don't know. People ke
by yongjik 3y ago
> >...Thus, projections of future Antarctic sea-ice extent and the associated climate implications are highly uncertain.
> Point is - we don't know.
People keep interpreting "we don't know" in the same way a mutual fund information sheet says "past performance does not guarantee future performance," but in reality, "we don't know" is akin to saying "You have a stage three liver cancer and it will likely spread to some other organs, but we don't know yet which organ and when."
Some people keep saying "But the doctors can't even tell me what will happen next month! I'm probably fine."
- nemo44x 3y agoYou're making a huge leap there. We do know that cancer is a sickness and we actually do know your chances of survival 6 months out, 1 year out, 5 years out, etc. We don't know the day you will die from it but we are certain you will die from it if left untreated. We have lots of empirical data that can be tested, replicated, and stated with a high probability of certainty. We have actual knowledge on this. This is what science is used for - to create actual knowledge. Not informed opinions.
- yongjik 3y agoYou are the one making a logical leap. We do know that the Earth's climate is entering conditions never seen during human history. We know how CO2 warms up the Earth. We just don't have a detailed knowledge of exactly how and where it affects weather. The operating assumption must be that things that never happened (or very rarely happened) will start to happen more frequently. You are arguing that as long as climatologists cannot reliably predict any particular disaster, we should assume the climate should be "business as usual." That's not science, that's just refusing to acknowledge the reality.