11–20 of 22 posts
A ~8% difference in efficiency is large, but even without the aforementioned "wiggle room" in standards, a 90% reduction still drastically reduced its footprint converting to CO2 vs methane.
There is a massive amount of conservative estimates implemented in current EPA standards. Further, air emission standards are typically based off "potential to emit" to add. A ~8% difference in efficiency is large, but even without the aforementioned "wiggle room" in standards, a 90% reduction still drastically reduced its footprint converting to CO2 vs methane.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
tiny errors like this gotta add up into deviations between what we're currently observing in the climate vs what models are predicting, right?
I think the point is that it's not really a "tiny" error. Phrasing it as "91% vs 98% efficient" makes it seem like it's only 'off' by a factor of 1.08x, but what really matters for the climate is 9% vs 2% leak rate — a whopping 4.5x! Perhaps surprisingly, this 'simple math' for us isn't obvious to a large fraction of the population. For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifica…
Don't need to patronize the reader with express restatements.
And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is that it's not really a "tiny" error. Phrasing it as "91% vs 98% efficient" makes it seem like it's only 'off' by a factor of 1.08x, but what really matters for the climate is 9% vs 2% leak rate — a whopping 4.5x! Perhaps surprisingly, this 'simple math' for us isn't obvious to a large fraction of the population. For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifica…
>For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifically. Don't need to patronize the reader with express restatements. And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0]
>And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
Sure, if you explain it. "4.5 times" is a good phrase. Doesn't take up many column inches.
It's a much harder leap to go straight from "91% vs 98%" to "that means 350% more," which is what the article is currently expecting.
Since we've apparently agreed not to have a working education system, maybe we should at least explain key global environmental threats in mass media in terms the majority of citizens can actually understand. Just a thought.
[0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-numer...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifically. Don't need to patronize the reader with express restatements. And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
Inexplicably name-calling clear math communication as "patronizing" doesn't make it any less essential. The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0] >And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase? Sure, if you explain it. " 4.5 times " is a goo…
Not true.
Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155
Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets.
And I see your article as making my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inexplicably name-calling clear math communication as "patronizing" doesn't make it any less essential. The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0] >And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase? Sure, if you explain it. " 4.5 times " is a goo…
>Inexplicably... Not true. Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets. And I see your article as making my point.
Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math!
"The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air."
It's a problem because it's a huge difference: over a quadrupling in total emissions. Re-reading, the authors never actually realize/acknowledge this.
Truly the blind leading the blind! :o
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Inexplicably... Not true. Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155 Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets. And I see your article as making my point.
>Did you miss the part of the article that highlights... Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math! "The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapol…
This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Did you miss the part of the article that highlights... Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math! "The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapol…
> This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
"However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
That's literally directly in your quote, taken from the article. "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." I can see we're done. cheers mate
You said they said:
> > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry."
That is NOT "literally directly" from the quote:
> "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry."
What you said changed the meaning.