3 ms·

> Globally, natural lake volume declined at a net rate of −26.38 ± 1.59 Gt year the phrase you read said "Over half (53 ± 2%) of the large lakes experienced si

> Globally, natural lake volume declined at a net rate of −26.38 ± 1.59 Gt year the phrase you read said "Over half (53 ± 2%) of the large lakes experienced significant water losses" (emphasis mine)

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Is 26.38 Gt a lot? There's 91k cubic kilometers of fresh water in lakes according to: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci... And a cubic kilometer is basically a Gt, right? .98 Gt? So 26 / 91,000 = ~0.02% ? Is that a lot? If it's really 0.02% - wouldn't you expect something to be random noise? How do we know it's not random noise?
- time_to_smile 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    So we should have 100% faith in what we're being told in the article? If the author was trying to deceive then they wouldn't cite data that provided contradiction. Seems more like a religious approach than a logical one. There are papers, that were well cited, claiming there would be no sea ice by 2010, which never occurred.
    - roqi 3y ago
      > So we should have 100% faith in what we're being told in the article? If you're asking questions that are answered in the article then that means you're discussing things without any context or insight or understanding, and have no intention to gather that context or insight or understanding. You aren't asking questions in good faith if you purposely avoid the answers.
  - lovemenot 3y ago
    I didn't read the parent's comment as you did. To me it looked like someone just trying to get a handle on the relative amounts and variability. They provided some relevant data and appeared open-minded. Your response to that added little to the discussion. You might have selected the parts of the article that answered those questions, but instead opted to shut down further discussion on a valid question. Which, may or may not be addressed in the sources.
- wanderingmind 3y ago
  But they measure close to 30 years (1992-2020), which means its close to 0.6% which is a significant number
  - q1w2 3y ago
    Is it? Maybe it's an error, or maybe there's more water in ice pack, glaciers, snow, underground, or even in the ocean. Like, it's unclear if there's a problem here or not.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Is 26.38 Gt a lot? There's 91k cubic kilometers of fresh water in lakes according to: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci... And a cubic kilometer is basically a Gt, right? .98 Gt? So 26 / 91,000 = ~0.02% ? Is that a lot? If it's really 0.02% - wouldn't you expect something to be random noise? How do we know it's not random noise?

time_to_smile 3y ago
[flagged]
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  So we should have 100% faith in what we're being told in the article? If the author was trying to deceive then they wouldn't cite data that provided contradiction. Seems more like a religious approach than a logical one. There are papers, that were well cited, claiming there would be no sea ice by 2010, which never occurred.
  - roqi 3y ago
    > So we should have 100% faith in what we're being told in the article? If you're asking questions that are answered in the article then that means you're discussing things without any context or insight or understanding, and have no intention to gather that context or insight or understanding. You aren't asking questions in good faith if you purposely avoid the answers.
- lovemenot 3y ago
  I didn't read the parent's comment as you did. To me it looked like someone just trying to get a handle on the relative amounts and variability. They provided some relevant data and appeared open-minded. Your response to that added little to the discussion. You might have selected the parts of the article that answered those questions, but instead opted to shut down further discussion on a valid question. Which, may or may not be addressed in the sources.
wanderingmind 3y ago
But they measure close to 30 years (1992-2020), which means its close to 0.6% which is a significant number
- q1w2 3y ago
  Is it? Maybe it's an error, or maybe there's more water in ice pack, glaciers, snow, underground, or even in the ocean. Like, it's unclear if there's a problem here or not.