Hacker News Reader

Comment by klyrs | Hacker News Reader

@dang this is a much better link

>> we estimate an 8.3% increase

> it would just be nice to have real data if they’re claiming exactly 8.3%

Point of fact, they don't claim "exactly" 8.3% -- they call it an estimate, and the notation indicates uncertainty -- read it as 8.3 ± 0.1%.

View on HN

And the article provides a link to nice graph one can extrapolate back or forward: https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/OurChangingOcean.aspx

It is quite unlikely that they can claim that much precision.

"8.3" probably reads as more authoritative than ">8%".

Whatever the case, 8% should be deeply alarming. Just how many % indicates a crashing ecosystem, and mass famine? Much of the world depends on ocean catch to get enough protein.

Take a look at the graph: https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/OurChangingOcean.aspx

~8.1% was not alarming 50 years ago, so why 8.3% should be alarming now? I would be more concerned about the curve slope and shape.

That graph shows ph, not %. And the seawater ph is decreasing over time. I think perhaps you've misread it?

> It is quite unlikely that they can claim that much precision.

Can you quantify that statement with any rigor?

The point is that 8% +/-1 is just as bad as 8.3% +/-0.1.

I think the point was more that your statement: "It is quite unlikely that they can claim that much precision." is non-obvious enough that it requires support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com