Hacker News Reader

This is an idiotic response at best. Are you honestly trying to say that the variations are natural? We have thousand upon thousands of years of climate details in ice cores, and while there is natural variation, the last 100 years vary more than anything else we can find in history. Here is an unbiased visual representation of all the temperature data we have from the last 20,000 years or so. Notice how the temperature does vary over time, but it takes thousands of years for the variance to occur. Scroll all the way to the bottom and look how drastically it's changed over even the last fifty years. This is the most straightforward representation I could find, and it's facts not opinion: https://xkcd.com/1732/

You realize an infographic involves opinion right? What data to use, what scale, etc. You can't just present one graph and say you win... Both sides could find a graph or 3.

The data is all temperature records, and the scale shows every recorded variation. What about that is opinion??

1) What date range was picked? That was a choice. Look back to the last Ice Age, and you would see more variation in the data.

2) What colors are picked for the background? We are in white now and going to red? What if the colors showed us in blue, and global warming moving us to white?

It is a total lie to say raw numbers don't lie. Every part about making an infograph lies. X axis. Y axis. Colors. Labels. We could take the same dataset and draw many different conclusions.

(Not that global warming isn't true, but that infographic isn't enough)

This is not an infographic, it's a plot of data with some humour sprinkled on top.

Are you aware of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm...

The associated period of massive carbon injection into the atmosphere has been estimated to have lasted no longer than 20,000 years. The entire warm period lasted for about 200,000 years. Global temperatures increased by 5–8 °C.[3] The carbon dioxide was likely released in two pulses, the first lasting less than 2,000 years. Such a repeated carbon release is in line with current global warming.[2] A main difference is that during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, the planet was essentially ice-free.[4]

Today we talk about the temperature going up less than 1 degree °C in the last 1,400 years. This is talking about a period of warming that was 5-8 degrees and lasted over 20,000 years.

So when people start to talk about how rapidly things are changing over a few hundred or a thousand years, it's still a blip in the time frame of the planet's history. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum happened over 55 million years ago and lasted more than 20,000 years. How can anybody say, "This is the warmest temps in the history of the planet!" when some of the cycles have happened over incredibly vast amounts of time and have been sustained for even longer?

And while I don't doubt some climate change is occurring, if you look at the scale in terms of millions of years, humans will be long gone before this planet really starts dying, and by then, it will reclaim, heal and move on from when we inhabited it. Truth is, the planet has been undergoing cooler and warming periods since it was born as a planet some 4 billion years ago.

So what? Its not helpful to score points off of what was the 'true' maximum temperature of the planet. Here we are, now, with coastal cities in jeopardy and Antarctica melting. It will affect us, our children and grandchildren (and 100X grandchildren if you are right and it lasts 20,000 years before recovering).

I take no solace in thinking "humans will be long gone". Not if its global catastrophe in the next decades that trigger that.

> Not if its global catastrophe in the next decades that trigger that.

People have talking about global catastrophe since the 1960's and some of the predictions from the first Earth day in 1970 were so alarmist it's funny to look back at those now:

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."

- Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

- Ecologist Kenneth Watt

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone."

- Paul Ehrlich

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

- Kenneth Watt

source: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/13-worst-predic...

That was over 4 decades ago and we're still here.

But back then, Siberia hadn't melted yet. Neither had the polar ice cap. Nor every significant glacier on the planet. We hadn't entered a series of unstable record-setting years wet/dry/hot/cold without ceasing.

So yea it seems funny or harmless if you ignore what's happened since.

>In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw.

Potentially, not anymore!

http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/seaweed-livestock-methane-em...

In my place, animals die if they wander in places with seaweed (the sprawl of which is caused by industrial agriculture and breeding), because those produce toxic gases when they rot.

I take it with a grain of salt because of the title including: "suggests"

And what's the projection, will it rise 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 100, 200 or 300 meters in the next 100 years? I have seen so many numbers, I don't know what the current estimation is. Anyway I tried to make sense of the article: " This number has hovered around 0.6 inches per decade since 1900...[]...Global sea level, the paper concluded, rose no less than 5.5 inches over the last century, and likely saw an increase of 6.7 inches."

lets see, 6.7 is likely. 6.7 / 10 = 0.67 inches per decade. and no less than 0.55 (lower than measured).

Or can someone explain these numbers otherwise (since people seem to disagree with down-votes)

You're confusing C20th sea level rises with projected future changes, which are much faster. (I'm sure you can find models, estimates and measurements they make the from and the associated data from climate reports)