|
|
 Originally Posted by Keith
with an B.Sc (Hons) in Agricultural science ,I would think that I am not the layman that you seem to think i am with regards CO2 production by agriculture. Hence the fact that i picked on that part of the figures because its part that i can make informed comment on.
I didn't know. Thanks for setting me straight.
Originally Posted by Keith
It's an interesting article with an unexpected observation and some sensationalism thrown in.
It seems the scientific conclusions are here in bold (added by me):
“We’ve shown the increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is happening, and with a plausible explanation why. But we don’t know exactly where the carbon sink is increasing the most, how long this increase will last, or what it means for the future of Earth’s climate.”
Underline for emphasis provided by me.
Plausibility is a useful "gut check" on a result, but it is NOT a scientific result. Plausibility serves to identify big, glaring mistakes in a result, but nothing more.
E.g. if you asked me how high a person can throw a baseball, I can do some research and make some calculations and produce a number. My plausibility check would be something like, "It's higher than most people are tall, and lower than a skyscraper, so the result I produced is plausible." My result could still be wrong, but not in an immediately obvious way.
The whole rest of that sentence is literally "dunno."
|
Reply With Quote