UniversalMomentum t1_j63lgsg wrote
Is it just my bias/imagination or is there a solid trend in very significantly underpredicting ice melt?
If I ran this whole show ice melt would be the top metric and we'd be seriously planning solar blocking because we don't even know that the natural peak temps of the Holocene (our current interglacial cycle) are too hot for modern society. If ice melt is this bad at these levels and PPMs a projected to hit 600-1000 in most likely scenarios... how else are you going to not kill a couple billion people and cause mass global breakdown?
If everybody used ice melt as the main metric they might not continuously underpredict the threat!
K1lgoreTr0ut t1_j63nnpt wrote
Scientists in this field tend to use conservative estimates to avoid being accused of alarmism.
Even if we have 100% accurate measurements and predictions, people will ignore them because they don’t want to believe they’ve been fooled.
gerundive t1_j69gdej wrote
> Scientists in this field tend to use conservative estimates to avoid being accused of alarmism.
Surely scientists in this field give probabilities for low, medium and high risk scenarios?
K1lgoreTr0ut t1_j6avv8q wrote
Only being very conservative produces anything resembling a low risk situation.
jsudarskyvt t1_j64bjr7 wrote
All the predictions around climate change are happening to a greater extent and faster than predicted.
gerundive t1_j69h22l wrote
Predictions around climate change which are happening to a greater extent and faster than predicted receive more attention.
jsudarskyvt t1_j6a2aqf wrote
By default a greater quantity of catastrophes is more noticeable.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments