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 specifically.
Methane is a great low hanging fruit to tackle first. Its atmospheric half-life is 8-12 years, which means slashing emissions now can 'bend the curve' in decades, not centuries. Upcoming satellites will monitor all emissions globally, with day-by-day and well-by-well granularity.
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...
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
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."
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.
In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.
Isn't this enough? Yes, the article could make the point more explicit at the expense of brevity, but most readers can infer the implications of marginal changes.
I'll do you one better. The article doesn't state the loss to taxpayers given the billions+ of permanently lost tax revenue!
/OT
I don't understand why this "point in time" article is meaningful years later, given it's been a known issue (far prior to the article) and the regulatory story has evolved.