Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submitlogin
UK Met Office Climate Dashboard (www.metoffice.gov.uk)
188 points by thibaut_barrere 6 months ago | hide | past | web | 178 comments | favorite

This is brilliant. If you ask me this is exactly the type of approach that has been missing from the climate discussion. As a natural born skeptic, the current approach of simplistic, repetitive, and often technically incorrect news articles and half-informed scolding by politicians, celebrities, and internet armchair climatologists smells way too much like propaganda or a cult.

> The front page shows the main indicators. Beneath each one there is additional detail, drilling down into why the indicator is important, how it has changed and how it was calculated. The pages also link through to the data so that you can explore it for yourself.

Just the facts (well, it's a start anyways) presented visually (presumably honestly) so the the meaning is obvious, with the ability to drill down to learn why the numbers are important, where the data comes from and how to get to it yourself, as well as links to where to learn more. Beautiful.

Under democratic governments, people need to largely align their opinions before we can finally start doing something about this problem, and I believe this is a crucial part of the type of persuasion it is going to take. I think there is still room for improvement, but I haven't seen this approach taken before and hope it becomes more popular. In fact, I believe the "pro" side should team up and produce one single authoritative website, and advertise the hell out of it - the fact that such a resource doesn't exist has always added to my skepticism.

> the current approach of simplistic, repetitive, and often technically incorrect news articles and half-informed scolding by politicians

That's not "the" current approach, that's your selective perception and/or framing. Democracy restrains governments, not people. At some point "failing to convince" has to translate to "shun and withdraw support from". We can't possibly throw away the human species because "some people weren't convinced there is an issue", as if they were children and the others adults with a burden of convincing, which does not exist. Climate change has been warned about since I can remember, it's certainly been a topic in the last 20 years. At this point, no adult has a solid excuse anymore.

So why is nothing being done? I think we both want something done, and yet here we are.

Democracy doesn't restrain people, really? The issues are numerous, but each person gets one vote for one party/person, effectively they are approving all of the subsequent decisions of the party they've voted for, when what they're really doing is accepting the aggregate of their promises.

Shun and withdraw support all you want, is that producing results, or not?

If your approach isn't producing results, am I crazy for suggesting we think more deeply about strategy?

> Democracy doesn't restrain people, really?

Not socially, not when it comes to the individual relations. I didn't mean convicing or voting are pointless, but it's not the end-all, be-all. It works for the lucky cases, but the bulk of the problem will require stepping on toes and deciding between mutually exclusive things.

Nobody who denies climate change actually wants to grow up in a refugee camp in 100 years and die at age 10, after 10 years of horror, to name just one of the consequences. Or in a society ravaged by Neonazis (unless they're Neonazis, then fuck what they want). So it's up to their betters to enforce their lack of consequence and intellectual integrity on them. They can't leave it at "failed to convince". Which, by definition, contains prior attempts to convince, just not an infinite number of them.

> If your approach isn't producing results, am I crazy for suggesting we think more deeply about strategy?

Who will "convince Trump", for example? You are simply are assuming good faith, functioning humans on the other hand without mental health defects, so what's your answer to where that isn't the case?

>> Democracy doesn't restrain people, really?

> Not socially, not when it comes to the individual relations.

My democracy has produced a very long list of laws that I must follow or they will put me in jail.

> I didn't mean convicing or voting are pointless, but it's not the end-all, be-all.

I absolutely agree with you on this. As I see it Democracy as it is is largely a fraud, when compared to how it is advertised to be.

> So it's up to their betters to enforce their lack of consequence and intellectual integrity on them. They can't leave it at "failed to convince".

Oh but they can leave it at "failed to convince", is that not more or less precisely where we are at, with little sign of a likelihood we'll be moving beyond it any time soon? This is the point I am trying to make, that no climate change enthusiast one seems willing to even consider. The irony of the situation is delicious.

> Who will "convince Trump", for example?

It's not Trump that needs convincing, it is the public. Understanding in detail why people voted for Trump in the first place would have yielded very valuable knowledge that could have been used towards persuading people to support fighting climate change, but instead we seem to have chosen to use our imaginations to decide why people voted for him. People who behave this way, which is mostly everyone I've encountered, are unintelligent in this respect, and the same style of thinking seems to be what is being deployed in the public relations campaign against climate change. I wish you luck, but it doesn't seem to be producing much change, so I will continue to advocate for improvements in strategy.

> You are simply are assuming good faith

Incorrect, I am assuming nothing, except where I have explicitly noted. You on the other hand, *seem to be assuming bad faith. You may be right, but I would recommend studying the matter to find out for sure.

> so what's your answer to where that isn't the case?

As always, I recommend studying the situation: find out the detailed reasons why people do not support climate change, study what the failures seem to be in why the current messaging is unsuccessful, make iterative changes to the strategy, and measure results as you go. If people thought of the situation more like playing a video game, perhaps that would diminish the sense of identity involved and result in the ability to think more clearly (for example, thinking of people as having mental health defects).

> for example, thinking of people as having mental health defects

I asked you how you would convince Trump, as an example of a specific individual we both "know". Your answer is to study someone else, to just assume I haven't thought or observed anything, and that I just declare people as evil or deficient because it's easier. I am not a "climate change enthusiast", my identity in this is zero. You might say I think I see the writing on the wall about forcing humanity through the eye of a needle into endless totalitarianism, and hey, I write a lot about that, but if all that just resolved itself, I would be so glad that I could just sing and hum and take nature photographs all day.

That not all of this is based on misunderstandings and able to be resolved peacefully is not a happy insight, but it's what my data points to, if you will. Just take the stories about (not always) elderly relatives being radicalized by some fake news on FB: these may be well meaning people, but they are in the clutches of not so benign people. Confront and overcome those, and then we'll see how much remaining confusion even exists.

Last but not least, if someone gives their child poison because they're either too ignorant or too evil to know better, do you a.) first try to convince them b.) take the child away by force, then explain to them why you did it? What if it is your child? Yes, it's not a clear cut imminent threat with climate change, but we'll get there. It's not just about the people who "have a right to arguments that are sweet to their gums to make them stop destroying our future voluntarily", it's also about the people after them.

One issue with these graphs is that they show a linear response, from which people extrapolate a linear forecast. People talk about the impact on future generations and such.

But if you closely on the ice cap graph for example you’ll notice an increased oscillation in more recent data. This has been described as a sign of a complex system reaching the end of the linear response, a tipping point if you will.

You’ll need to listen to the experts to interpret the data, and what most of them seems worried about is the non-linear changes.

How do you approach people who doesn't have trust in science? It feels so surreal that the science is settled, but some people still don't believe climate change is real.

Increasingly, I don't. There comes a point where it's clear the best ROI is on organizing and rallying the people who do listen to science instead of trying to convert those who aren't interested.

For instance, which sounds more feasible - a compagin to convince a climate denying politician of the error of their ways and to change how they do things, or a campaign to just vote them out by ensuring the highest possible turnout among people who already agree with you?

Agree. With one little caveat - voting is not gonna help. We need a radical cultural and socioeconomic change, and historically these kind of changes were never initiated by the parliament. Think about suffragette, civil rights movement, anti war movement, gay rights etc. We need direct action.

True, thus XR. Or maybe running for office. This is also why individual action is a bit of a red herring - it's all well and good to limit your footprint but as they say, the avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

I think most people agree with climate change, they just don't think it will affect us in the current century.

In the Netherlands we cut the construction of new buildings in half, the livestock is about to get cut in half, the speedlimit is cut by 25%, gas prices for heating homes is going up significantly, flights are cut, a new airport is at the risk of never opening. Those are actions that impact people significantly. We are about to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and a lot of people are going on welfare, will have to trade their paid-for home for small social rental housing and will not have money left for anything besides food and maybe going to a cinema twice a year.

The actions mentioned above are necessary but I don't blame people for resisting those changes. If you are not seeing any chance in the climate but the government is pushing for you to lose your job over it, I can understand that you will get angry.

27.000 people in construction are about to lose their job[1]. Many of them are contractors who are not eligible for welfare, and many of them are too poor for unemployment insurance, so they will probably end up homeless.

[1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2306987-stikstofcrisis-raakt-veel-mee...

This situation is all about nitrogen emissions, not carbon emissions. It has been caused by mismanagement, particularly of the dairy industry.

As for the airport: as someone who lives under the flight route I really do hope that it isn't going to be opened. These planes are going to be flying really low and adding to the already bad air pollution. All so someone can fly short haul with a budget airline.

That's a shame that they're going to lose their job but arguably they were going to eventually anyway from automation. That the Netherlands is doing this early just means we all get to benefit from learning through observation when the "what do we do with our citizens when we can't find work for them to do" crisis hits our countries.

> the science is settled, but some people still don't believe

The science of basic probability math is settled for a few hundred years now but people still buying lottery tickets and playing roulette.

What is so surprising about that?

People can perfectly understand the math and still feel like spending ten bucks on a lottery ticket is a good investment, because hope and excitement with a tiny chance of winning something is worth ten bucks to them. It' much harder to justify dooming future generations to a much harsher life so that you can life a little bit more comfortably today.

> It feels so surreal that the science is settled, but some people still don't believe climate change is real.

If you're genuinely curious, I'll give you some insight into the mind of a natural skeptic. I am very suspicious of movements based on expressions like "the science is settled" - in this context, what does "the science" and "is settled" even mean, precisely? No doubt, you and many others can provide a reasonable and plausible answer to that question, but do the explanations match up, and is this science?

I personally believe climate change is real, but based on a wide variety of reasons I am not convinced all players in this movement are informed and acting completely in good faith. When large masses of humans seem to start thinking the same, without really thinking (their opinions being based on propaganda, not science - signs of this already showing up in this page), I get nervous. YMMV

I also perceive that being downvoted every single time I honestly express this genuine sentiment, or dare to point out uncomfortable facts, further strengthens the resolve of my resistant attitude, and based on an extensive reading of forum discussions on these and other contentious topics I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way. Human psychology is a hell of a drug - ignore it at your peril, social engineers.

"When large masses of humans seem to start thinking the same, without really thinking"

So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking? And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done?

What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"?

> So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking?

No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs.

> And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done?

No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs.

> What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you?

I've said nothing to criticize the IPCC.

> Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"?

Your comment is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Observe how significant of a role your imagination (heuristics) played in your interpretation of what I was saying. Here I will daringly speculate a bit.....observe, right now, if there is an emotional reaction in your body right now as you are reading these words. Also observe if the magnitude of that reaction intensified while reading that last sentence.

Observe the downvotes (as of the time of writing) on my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482841 Offers of advice to learn from forum discussion like this and improve the delivery and persuasive value of the "pro" message is literally downvoted! Is this thinking, or is something more complex going on here?

Based on all of the conversations I've read on this topic, I perceive an authoritarian streak in this movement (the science is settled, the discussion is over - assimilate or gtfo) that puts a bad taste in my mouth.

But that's fine, all of this is nothing more than my personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) - I'm not demanding you behave a certain way or not. You and your teammates will reap what you sow, I consider myself mostly just an outspoken observer - my interest is not so much in climate change itself, I am interested in the psychology of the discussion. To me, this is the interesting part, and I also speculate that this is where the solution to the current impasse lies (and not just wrt to climate change). But, this idea seems to an extremely unpopular, worthy of nothing other than scorn, and certainly not of consideration. Although.....I do now see there are others showing up in this thread that recognize the very same problem I see. Might others be waking up and seeing what is right in front of their eyes?

I shall leave you to your current approach. There's an extremely strong sense of self-confidence in your team, maybe completely ignoring psychology and merely repeating "the science" over and over, while insulting and downvoting anyone who dares disagree in any way (or offer sincere advice from a different perspective), is the optimal approach after all. Time will tell if the "chosen" tactics will bear fruit, for the sake of all of us let's hope you guessed correctly.

Another way of stating this is: it may be in your best interests to consider the possibility that your dispute is not with me, but with reality itself, and if you find that idea offensive, be careful that you have your heuristics on a short leash.

EDIT: Well how about that, a quick downvote. I certainly didn't expect that.

I didn't downvote (don't have the karme for it).

But you won't engage with the science. You're just probing at basic problems of epistemology and hand-wringing. Literally no one can argue against that and it isn't productive. What about the science do you want to discuss?

> But you won't engage with the science.

Your heuristics need more tuning. I've engaged with the science, and I will do so again in the future.

> You're just probing at basic problems of epistemology and hand-wringing.

Incorrect. I was pointing out some reasons for my skepticism. I literally said that.

> Literally no one can argue against that and it isn't productive.

If climate change enthusiasts choose to ignore those who explain why they're not jumping on board the train, and therefore fail to gain anything useful from the conversation, the fault is not mine. If you prefer to carry on with your same approach rather than constantly improve it, be my guest.

> What about the science do you want to discuss?

I'm not particularly interested in the science, it seems clear enough to me to justify action, at the very least from a risk perspective. I'm more interested in what the underlying cause is of the inability for the cheerleaders to accomplish anything beyond attracting attention. If this problem is real, at some point you're going to have to figure out how to get people to take action. If you can't figure that out, perhaps you should be open to new ideas, particularly if they are coming from someone who is not responsive to your current techniques but willing to explain why.

I agree with you. However, tell me how you are not making the the appeal to authority argument, and/or confirmation bias.

What is wrong with appeal to authority? Fallacies don't mean your argument is instantly wrong. It just means your argument isn't perfectly sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority, as opposed to giving an example of a "large mass of humans who believe the same thing". You haven't discredited them, you have only mocked me for choosing to believe in an expert body. That is fine, and we should always question authorities and their methods.

But flippantly saying "How is this not making an appeal to authority" is frustrating. Yea, so what? Are the authorities wrong? Unless you can answer that essential question your needling on this point is irrelevant.

>What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you?

>And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority

I mean.... yes?

I'm sorry you find the question frustrating to answer. But your post revolves around trusting the IPCC because they are an authority.

I think that's a weak argument because if a guy doesn't know what the letters IPCC mean, you're not going to win them over. I think it's more effective to be open to the idea that maybe we're all wrong, and work from that instead of the opposite. You know, healthy skepticism, science. If you approach it like that, you can still work towards all the same goals without being divisive.

The way we're all just supposed to never question the authorities or sacred texts is how this has become a wedge issue.

The problem is that if you want to understand the issue fully you'll have to at least read and understand a couple of physics books.

Ain't nobody got time for that, so these kind of arguments are all that's left. Unless you want some recommendations?

But basically, increasing CO2 will increase the energy input into the system, that is teenager level science. Where the energy goes and what the consequences are are increasingly more complicated and less understood the more processes are involved.

Yup, the fact that if you dare to study the science objectively and ask, e.g. how much of the warming we’re seeing right now is attributable to humans? You’ll get effectively socially ostracized, meanwhile that’s literally the most important question in the whole climate debate.

This question has been thoroughly studied: https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

Feel free to read the summary for policy makers: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...

You can ask whatever questions you like. Those of us who aren't dismissive of climate science have been able to get answers like yours without problem.

Meanwhile, those of us who understand that it is very difficult to tease out natural from man-made warming are very skeptical of the increasing politicization of science.

We're coming out of an ice age after all; I see nothing in the current warming that points to an aberration from what could be natural, asides from the much hysteria about greenhouse gases.

Collect some data that shows that the current warming is nothing to be concerned about and publish a paper. You'll be famous.

Why do you think this is the most important question?

Because it's entirely plausible that most of the warming is natural and not anthropogenically forced. If that's the case, then we're doing real harm to the poorest people in the world by needlessly raising the price of energy.

Why do you think that is plausible? What natural drivers are there that would be able to do that?

There are people who are misinformed (for whatever reason) and then there are people who don't want to be informed

As I grow older, I am more and more convinced that the second category of people (most anti vaxxers, hard core religious types etc) cannot be convinced of anything, and that includes usage of hard facts and science. Even if they could be, the amount of time and effort would be enormous, so we are better off talking to the first category of people instead.

The problem though - the people who tend to close their eyes and ears to anything other than what they already believe in, also usually tend to be the loudest :(

Stuff like this. Although there's an argument you don't have to, you just have to convince a relatively small number of politicians.

I think sites like this help. Quite a poor job has been done of pushing the data to the front and keeping publishing it without changing the metrics or methodology and I'd imagine most people will respect that eventually. You can't win everyone.

That said, I'd have been crucified in school for starting a graph from a number other than zero (CO2 PPM) because of the impression it creates, I'd probably have got away with the route round that the difference graphs employ though.

What science in regards to climate change is settled?

I think what helps is to keep two things strictly seperated: observation and explaination.

Our observation is, that in the last 200 years the earth warmed faster than ever in its history. The fastest warming cycle before that took 4000 years for the same temperature.

So what really is settled is that there is scary fast warming that coincides with population growth and industrialization. This is not a theory, this is measurements.

Because a temperature rise this fast is kinda scary and we might wanna stop it if there is even the tiniest chance it is our own fault, scientists started to create models that try to explain the climate ever more acurrately.

Because they are models of a (in the true sense of the word) global system that is inherently chaotic in nature deriving very accurate predictions is hard, but the measurements are warming while we are at it and most predictions haven’t been that far off.

People who argue against men made climate change honestly just have no idea about the climate usually and often not even about the consequences. This is why you will get xenophobes arguing against climate change although they should be against it, if they are afraid of big amounts of foreign people fleeing their countries.

In the end the question is: if you are not sure whether climate change is manmade — how much of a chance would you take? Or is it that these people don’t want it to be real?

> we might wanna stop it if there is even the tiniest chance it is our own fault,

We might want to stop it even if it's not our fault!

The greenhouse effect, for one. It's essentially the blackbody effect along with spectral properties of constituent atmospheric gases.

This is a straight up mathematical measurement and would account for ~.2C warming per decade and is regarded as an uninteresting question in climate science. The actual questions being asked are what feedbacks are there that would drastically increase/decrease this number.

Uninteresting... settled... tomayto... tomahto...

If you dismiss anything uninteresting as no longer being climate science, then we end up in a no-true-Scotsman loop. I was responding to the question "what climate change science is settled", not "what are active research topics".

I wasn't really disagreeing with you, only pointing out that CO2 energy absorption has been settled science of over a hundred years and really isn't considered climate science. It's just basic physics.

Probably the same way you approach people who don't trust every claim of "soft" sciences, like human psychology. You do the best you can with what you have, and continually work to improve the science.

Who doesn't think climate change is happening? Even the hardest skeptic acknowledges natural longer term climate change. Others acknowledge recent history as shown in these graphs but doubt the causation. Causation is very difficult to prove without a controlled experiment, so that's a reasonable doubt. Others accept the causation but doubt the predicted future changes, which absolutely are not settled, so they're right to doubt. Others accept predictions but doubt the cost to society will be great enough to warrant some expensive measures proposed to reduce it. That's absolutely not settled either.

> It feels so surreal that the science is settled


Is the global mean temp for the earth hotter:

1. Right now

2. During the Bronze Age


What parts of the entire field of psychology from the last 50 years have not failed to replicate?

What parts of nutrition science from the last 50 years are useful, or at least predictive?

What assumptions were we certain about in anthropology and history 50 years ago that we now know are completely wrong?

It feels so surreal that people think science is something you settle, at all. I cannot imagine the confusion that would lead an educated person into in thinking that.

This is not a discussion about nutrition, or psychology, or anthropology. It's a discussion about two very concrete questions:

1. Is global warming happening right now?

2. Are humans responsible for it?

The answer to those two questions is absolutely unreservedly settled: it's "yes". It's as settled as any question in science can be, it's as settled as the fact that electrons exist.

The point is that how is a layperson to know which sciences are trustworthy and which are not? The media and school treat all sciences as equally trustworthy, and then it has turned out that some of them are pretty bogus. (Half of all published research findings are false, John Ioannidis, etc) So the layperson should be excused for being suspicious of all sciences, in fact it's a reasonable stance to take if one doesn't have the time or interest to examine each science closely.

Of course I have a mental ranking of which sciences are to be trusted and how much, but we can't expect the general public to take such an interest. It's just all science lumped into one big bucket, and it's not pretty.

Doesn't matter. People would be more willing to take it on trust if it weren't for 1) motivated denialists 2) ex-"tobacco not harmful" mercenaries 3) useful idiots who are willing to consider [edit] the possibility they have a valid "point of view": they don't.

That's an interesting point. I guess it's on us (scientists I mean) to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

And a third: Is global warming bad?

The answer to all three is "yes", but "yes" isn't a useful answer. "How much?" has a lot less consensus (and if history is any guide, a lot less confidence).

Yes, and the fourth: "What should be done?"

The problem becomes when people roar in about 1 and 2 and then make somewhat outrageous demands for 4, without justifying 4, or often 3.

This is what upsets most people, I think, even if they are not clever enough to articulate what's going on. There's a motte of defensible science that pushes for a much less defensible list of adjacent social causes, and then any pushback on the conclusions is easily painted as being "anti-science."

I've had this exact concern for the past decade and a half. Climate change activists really aren't using logic because they completely neglect 3 and just pull an answer to 4 out of a hat. Then when people instinctively feel their answer is unreasonable, they mock them for not believing in 1 and 2.

If you have no estimate of the cost of climate change, then you also have no business proposing costly preventative measures.

If you're saying humans are responsible for 100% of climate change, it is "absolutely unreservedly" a no.

We don't know how fast the Earth is warming and we don't know how much of that warming is anthropogenic. The best "thermometers" we have are the UAH and RSS data sets, and they disagree by nearly 50% and historical data is constantly adjusted.

The only science actually settled is: the Earth is warming, disconcertingly fast, and humans are a large part of the process. Anything else even slightly more in depth is definitely not settled.

>The only science actually settled is: the Earth is warming, disconcertingly fast, and humans are a large part of the process.

This is exactly what I said. In 2., not that humans are 100% all the cause of global warming, but definitely the dominating factor.

It's not a binary question. Here are some alternative questions:

1. At what rate is global warming happening?

2. How do current temperature trends compare to historical data?

3. What is the list of causes that may contribute to current trends, and how much influence does each cause have?

4. What are the implications if the current trend continues for 100 years?

5. What are the possible responses, how much does each cost, and how how many degrees temperature reduction do we estimate for each?

We may have a pretty good idea that CO2 is driving some degree of change, the nature of the change, impact etc. is not remotely settled.

Case and point: the Met graph time scales are all cherry picked to maximise the 'visible trend' for a given activity - a rather unscientific and propagandistic approach, however good their intentions might be. In short - the charts are 'Bad Science'.

Ironically whenever I see such cherry-picking, or serious people asking 16 year old Swedish girls about 'what we should do about Nuclear Energy' - I can only be made skeptical.

We have to balance the needs of truth and actual science with the need to communicate this information into the commons.

> the Met graph time scales are all cherry picked to

Any evidence for this?

I think they simply show the period for which the data is reliable, but I'd like to know if that assumption is wrong.

There's nothing "settled" about question #2. The extent to which humans are responsible for climate change, comparative to external factors (such as the sun heading towards the end of its hydrogen-burning life), is very much debatable.

You can use adverbs like "absolutely" and "unreservedly" but that doesn't make your statement greater than an opinion.

You know, people use that as some kind of defense, but I would find it even scarier if humans were not responsible for it.

Being responsible for about all of it makes it possible for us to be in control. Not being responsible would make the situation akin to being hit by a meteorite.

Some people might find that preferable, since they do not have to change, but I find it far scarier.

And there you find why people make up ridiculous claims and become "skeptics" when they are not that way about any other facts of their life: because if they acknowledge the truth, then they commit themselves to doing something about it.

And when you have decades of fabricated political identity that says that we can't switch from fossil fuels and we can't change any aspect of our life that threatens the profits of a few very wealthy corporations, acknowledging these facts also means going against one's own identity.

The very same propagandists that let tobacco companies persist with false claims about smoking and cancer came back for fossil fuel companies' defense with a highly honed bag of tricks.

That's why we see massive anti-science responses in these comments, just like every media mention of climate change brings out hoards of denialist a to barrage the media outlet and scientists that show up: people perceive it as a personal attack on them and act accordingly.

Seriously? Of all the possible external factors (which, by the way, have all been shown to be relatively insignificant) you pick the one that’s seven to eight orders of magnitude slower than the change we’re seeing right now?

"such as the sun heading towards the end of its hydrogen-burning life"

Yes, that event will cause the sun to start burning helium instead, and will swell to a red giant approximately the radius of the orbit of Mars.

In about 4-5 billion years.

Yes and in the meantime it's burning steadily hotter.

Also, the actual questions are not just "Has Earth's average surface temperature increased 0.8 degree Celsius since 1880?" but:

* What is humanity's effect on global warming?

* What meteorological and ecological effects does global warming have?

* What is the magnitude of impact of hypothetical changes to human behavior?

1. Lots 2. Very 3. Extensive

I know this is flippant, but the answers are all generally pretty well-known

Within orders of magnitude perhaps.

In 2008, computer models from Naval Postgraduate School, NASA, Institute of Oceanology, and Polish Academy of Science predicted ice-free Artic summers by 2013. [1] The study was prominently cited in Al Gore's acceptance of the Noble Prize, which was awarded for his dedicated advocacy of climate change science.

In 2013, the US Dept of Energy and US Navy predicted it would be gone before 2019. [2].

For more ice-free Artic science, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline#Ice-fre...

Complicated systems are complicated. Science knows as much about climate change as it does about cholesterol.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/d...

You've taken a quote from a study that talked about the lower bound of the range of estimates (earliest possible ice free date) and specifically mentioned the high range of uncertainty (even in the news story pull quote), and you've decided that was a firm prediction which has been invalidated. This is your bad science at best, your deceitfulness at worst.

"We predict X will happen sometime between 10 and 50 years from now, sorry about the high range of uncertainty"

"Welp, it has been ten years and one day and X didn't happen, THOSE SCIENTISTS WERE ALL LIARS, DON'T BELIEVE THE SCIENCE"

Just dishonest.

This answer is more flippant than you can imagine.

#3 Is the worst - if we have learnt anything in the past century, it is that our attempts at behavioural changes rarely work[i], and even when they do they often result in the opposite effect[ii].

[i] - My favourite book that points this out is Behavioural Adaptation and Road Safety. Well worth a read. Examples are many, such as in the case of criminalising texting while driving, which results in "crotching" (texting from a phone on your lap) and has resulted in increased accidents.

[ii] - Plenty of examples of this already on the environmental scene:

    - let's use plastic bags to save trees! oh no plastic bags are worse!

    - let's use diesel rather than petrol! Here, have subsidies! Oh no, it's making everything worse

    - let's improve energy efficiency! oh no, now more energy is used! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Are they? Then provide a source eberyone in the thread is asking for. I think this is the issue. Both sides declared themselves so correct that they see no need to 'show their work'. Clearly there is a progressive warming, there is a strong correlation with co2, the greenhouse model seems mostly confirmed, but what else? I am not contesting your assertion, but seeking understanding. Being flippnt is how we got in this mess.

If you accept that humans pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, I'm not sure why you're asking for a specific citation; if you're looking for papers that answer the spefific question of whether humans are contributing to global warming, and the consensus among scientists in all disciplines concerned, there are several:




The poster should not ask such silly questions, just trust the science!

Exactly - and I would add another 2:

* What are the confidence intervals around the answers to the above? I.e., what are the probabilities of the ranges of answers to the above.

* Assuming that such probabilistic models have been running, unchanged, for at least a decade - how have these probabilities held up, where it is possible to measure the actual outcomes?

One extremely humorous IPCC report mentioned that cloud cover changes are poorly understood, could massively increase or decrease warming feedbacks likely drowning out all other signals, but for the sake of the report would be ignored.

So much science-y science you just can't stand it.

We won't like the results of the updates on accuracy that have been made, say the rumors. Still some time off until publication though, who knows what'll happen until then.

edit: One morbidly humorous plot is this one:


P1, P2 and P3 are just.. kind of ridiculous with that emission drop. It's the kind of thing where you go 'haha sure' and then drown your thoughts in beer.

It is nearly impossible to construct randomized control trials in Nutritional science and Psychology. Both are about average impact of specific things many entities, and even measurement itself is a nightmare (self reporting, placebo)

On the other hand, climate science has a control, which is climate measurements from all the years when humans were not polluting. Additionally, the measurements are actual mathematical levels of atmospheric properties or compound concentrations. The statistics here is a lot more solid. Philosophy, Anthropology and History are unfortunately not sciences in the rigorous sense.

Additionally, as looked down upon as anecdotes are, there are way too many of them to ignore. This year it has continued raining my home town into November. In my 25 years alive, it had never rained past Sept there. As much as anomalies do happen, these micro-level trends have only helped strengthen the case for climate change.

Sure, no science is ever settled. There is always a non-zero chance of even the most settled science being false. All of modern medicine can be bogus and homeopathy can be the real solution. Yes, there is a non-zero probability of that.

Skepticism is healthy, but when the odds of the contrary stance are so low, it helps to ask if deserves to be the level of questioning when the opposite stance offers almost zero evidence of the contrary. (apologies for weird sentence constructions. It sounded right in my head)

Yeah, but climate change rests upon radiation absorption, thermodynamics, and a bunch of other 19th century science that was largely unaffected by the 20th century's upheavals in physics.

Interesting graphs, but it's a little confusing that all but one of them use difference of the metric (i.e. relative values) instead of absolute values -- what and when are the differences relative to?

The titles indicate the baseline for each graph. e.g. "Global mean temperature difference from 1850-1900"

They are plotting the anomalies which tend to be much more useful for climate studies than the absolute values. e.g. [0,1]

[0] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/anomalie...

[1] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

Right, so what is plotted is the deviation from the mean reading in the time range given? Thanks for the links, those are insightful.

Absolute sea level (from the bottom of the ocean?) is meaningless for people concerned about coastal flooding. Absolute temperature is also meaningless in deg C because the zero is arbitrary anyway. Even if they used kelvin, nobody cares how far we are from 0K.

All of these metrics have subtleties regarding the methodology, which makes the long term relative shifts more important than the absolute values.

All of the charts should use the same time scale. It's confusing and misleading to use different scales for each.

The argument for doing it is likely because that's all the good data we have for each, but it would still be better to scale them the same way.

How do you mean? They're different units and it is well documented (titles/legends, etc.) which should avoid confusion

If they're the same time scale you can easily compare what has changed over time. With different scales it's hard to match them up.

The graphs are independent and you can easily read each. What kind of comparisons do you want amongst them? Other than the 2 of them, the y axes of the graphs have different units.

On a phone they stack up vertically, in that setting it’s quite natural to want to have the time axis aligned too. It makes correlations stand out more.

I wonder why the chart for CO2 concentration starts at 1960 vs 1850 for the global mean temperature difference

The Mauna Loa daily CO2 measurements started in 1958. Before that, there weren't any continuous measurements happening.

Without knowing, my guess would be that's when we started measuring & recording those things?

That is the right answer.

I like the facts-based graphs, with multiple data-collecting sources. However, I think somewhere among these graphs should be some kind of 'speculative' graph that shows potential remedial efforts impacts on one or more graphs. Even something as simple as a "when we are gone" graph that predicts what would occur if all industrial, agricultural processes stopped... just so people can see what is the realistic asymptote of moderating conditions we can expect, under an extreme condition. Or, perhaps, put in a more optimistic tone, a 'magical-antimatter-grid-power-source-without-co2' scenario.

The IPCC has many of these, for example here:


The older reports have even more of them.

I find this one especially informative:


There is historical data and the results for different emission pathways (timelines of human emissions).

What about charts for the positive counter-cyclical measurements? Off the top of my head, if there's more CO2 there should be more plant growth, right? Is there a chart for that? The problem with these current charts is while momentum is usually a good predictor, if you aren't looking at the full picture you might miss key indicators that could drastically change the future (ie. if you just looked at charts that showed the WeWork narrative you want to present, the future would look predictable until a couple months ago).

More CO2 might not be a good thing for plant-based carbon sinks: Some plants with less stored carbon might outcompete others, lowering the sink storage. This issue is quite involved.


Interesting. Thanks for the link. More reason to have more charts on this dashboard tracking countercyclicals like plant density, green acreage, etc

How do you measure the level of the sea at the mm precision? It is highly doubtful we are able to do that with any kind of instrumentation, more so around the whole world at the same time.

EDIT: they say they measure everything with satellites, but that does not mean there is no incertitude in the measurement. No measurement is 100% accurate, and I'd certainly like to see the error range of satellites, when even GPS can't do better than +/- 30 cm precision.

AFAIK, satellite sea level measurements are only really accurate to a few cm. But when many measurements are averaged over long periods of time, that's still good enough to observe trends on the order of a few mm per year.

A bit more information about the measurement process: https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/measuremen...

Each diagram should have a FAQ with answers to questions like ekianjo's, otherwise a conspiratorial attack is too easy.

The "pro" side should read and learn from forum discussion like this (other issues pointed out: "All of the charts should use the same time scale. It's confusing and misleading to use different scales for each", "I wonder why the chart for CO2 concentration starts at 1960 vs 1850 for the global mean temperature difference", "Interesting graphs, but it's a little confusing that all but one of them use difference of the metric (i.e. relative values) instead of absolute values -- what and when are the differences relative to?"), making notes on criticisms and improving their presentations. I think "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results" has some relevance here.

That is very interesting! how do they know that a difference in a satellite measurement is not due to slippage in its orbit?

The nice thing about satellite orbits is that they are extremely steady and predictable. Over long time scales, a satellite's orbit drifts due to many effects, such as non-uniformity of Earth's gravity. But over short timescales, its motion is very precisely determined by its orbital parameters.

In particular, there's a precise relationship between a satellite's orbital period and its orbital radius (technically, its semi-major axis). A one-centimeter variation in altitude would result in a timing error of several hundred microseconds per day, which is enough to be detected using precise clocks and Doppler effect measurements.

> A one-centimeter variation in altitude would result in a timing error of several hundred microseconds per day

Source or math for this? Because for any signal in the MHz range, I’m not sure I believe it necessarily.

Several hundred microseconds of a 150Mhz wave is several thousand cycles. That seems... questionable.

I did a check on a decibel calc with a 150Mhz signal and a 1 meter change was approx .01db... which is effectively undetectable to a real world application. Signal strength isn’t the same as propagation delay, I know. But yea...

I look forward to being corrected, but I can’t say that claim seems legitimate on its face.

EDIT: Nope. Did some probably bad math on this on my own, claim is very nonsense. Esp because the delta distance is in space where radio has the speed of light.

I don't understand what you think is nonsense about this claim. Can you elaborate?

The timing numbers I quoted are purely based on the orbital motion of a (hypothetical) satellite, and have nothing to do with radio signals. Kepler's third law states that a body's orbital period varies in proportion to the 1.5th power of its semi-major axis. A 1cm altitude difference for a satellite in LEO corresponds to a change of about 1.5 parts per billion, which translates to a 2.2 ppb change in orbital period. As I said, this amounts to a cumulative difference of a couple hundred microseconds per day.

And it's actually much easier to precisely measure frequency differences than amplitude differences, if you have sufficiently accurate clocks. If you have a 150.000000MHz reference signal and a 150.000001MHz doppler-shifted signal, you can simply multiply them together to get a 1Hz beat frequency. Using this technique, you can measure phase differences that are considerably less than a single cycle of the original signal.

A major limiting factor, of course, is the stability and precision of your reference clocks. Apparently, the Jason-2 satellite that (until recently) was responsible for a lot of these measurements had a high-precision quartz oscillator that was stable to roughly one part per trillion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30004875

Measuring the absolute position and velocity of a satellite is comparatively a lot more difficult. But with sufficiently precise Doppler relative-velocity measurements from multiple points, you can solve for both the orbital parameters and the slowly-varying perturbations with a high degree of accuracy.

> extremely steady and predictable.

I don't agree with this claim, unless you quantify it. This has already been touched upon before, for example here:

> "It depends upon the orbit and what time scales you are talking about. Satellites are subjected to many perturbations in its orbit. There are effects due to atmospheric drag, which as you'd expect affect lower satellite orbits more than higher orbits, but the atmosphere swells up all the time depending upon the level of solar activity. Gravitationally, the Earth is not a point mass and it has regions where the gravity gradient changes, which causes the satellite to get pulled one way or another (very slightly) as it orbits around."


The link in the top-level comment addresses all of these concerns, among other considerations and carefully calibrated corrections. They clearly know what they are doing.

They have a high quality map of the variations of gravity across the surface of the Earth. They also have a model that accounts for atmospheric drag.


The problem is that every instrument involved in the chain of measurement has its own inaccuracies, and at the end of the day you would need to make sure that once you add each of their inaccuracies it does not compound up to more than what you are actually measuring. This is a very complex subject and I'm not sure it's as "settled" as you seem to portray it.

Oh, sure, I don't mean to minimize the engineering challenges involved. I'm far from an expert in the details of how these particular satellites work; I'm just trying to describe the general principles, to make the point that this level of measurement accuracy shouldn't be viewed as intrinsically unattainable.

> But when many measurements are averaged over long periods of time, that's still good enough to observe trends on the order of a few mm per year.

That would be assuming your satellites have no measurement error over time (doubtful) and that all satellites used over several decades (since it's not a single satellite) have the same level of accuracy or bias over time. Unfortunately in practice it's very rarely the case and you end up averaging different measurements with different levels of inaccuracies and that does not make for a very convincing resulting single value.

You are very casually implying gross incompetence or dishonesty among the many highly skilled individuals working on these projects.

Have you actually thoroughly researched the methodologies they use? Do you have any hard evidence that they are not properly accounting for sources of error or overstating their results?

The claim that you can actually measure the growth of grass from a sattellite (which is the kind of precision we are talking about here) seems just too extraordinary to accept at face value, when all other technologies we use with satellites have no such precision. it does not pass the sniff test. I could be wrong but I am willing to bet the error bars on such measurements would be huge.

These do not account for the movement of the ground itself, it wpuld only be a relative measure.

If the ground is sinking rather than the sea rising, the impact will be pretty similar!

1) Make a lot of imprecise measurements.

2) Average them.

The more measurements, the closer the average will be to the truth.

Only if the error is distributed evenly.

Since we're interested in the delta, even if it isn't even, it will not matter as long as the error distribution is constant during the whole experiment.

If you are within the range of error of your instruments you can average what you want all you will get is random noise. Averaging within the noise threshold does not bring you closer to the truth.on top of that there are waves on the sea so this is not even a flat and fixed surface we are talking about.

Glad to see climate change denialism has spread HN, what the fuck is happening?

You've been bitten by the contrarian dynamic, which I just wrote about elsewhere—see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21475106 and https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Your comment is a classic phase-2 voter-upper, which was sitting at the top of the thread until I marked it off topic. Apologies for quoting myself, but: After that first wave of comments, we frequently see a second wave of comments objecting in a reflexive way to the first wave. Although they take the opposing position—defending the article and criticizing the comments—it's the same contrarian dynamic, the same mechanism, driving them. Usually the second wave gets upvoted the most, leading to the paradox of the top comment in a thread expressing how bad the thread is, or the most popular comment expressing how wrong the populace is.

Once this subthread was marked off topic, which lowers it on the page, one sees that the top subthreads are all pretty thoughtful. In other words, once you account for the contrarian dynamic (first wave of dismissive comments, second angry wave dismissing the dismissals and getting voted to the top), HN is doing reasonably well in this case. The contrarian dynamic happens in general; it has nothing to do specifically with climate, any more than with race (which was the context in the thread I just linked to).

Lot's of low effort contrarianism in just about every thread is what's happening.

Genuinely, I think HN is now worse than reddit, only reddit has some actual funny/entertaining comments while HN is just... I don't know low effort tedium pretending to be insight?

Maybe HN got too popular?

Are you serious?? There's no way HN is worse than reddit...the front page of reddit for me has about 1/3 twitter posts, 1/3 memes, and 1/3 teenage-culture references. This is not funny or entertaining...there are maybe 5-10% of posts MAX that I find enjoyable...only if I head to r/aww will I find genuinely worthwhile content.

My friends introduced me to a new term for this site... the orange site.

It’s hard to say if it’s people espousing heartfelt views, trolls, bots, or who knows what other internet monster?

> Lot's of low effort contrarianism in just about every thread is what's happening.

Not to mention mind reading.

Contrarianism is when you're well informed about both viewpoints and slightly leaning towards the less popular one.

Flatly denying the other side's points isn't contrarianism - at best it's trolling and at worst - willful ignorance.

Honestly, it is really, really bad.

The worst comments are of the "just asking questions!" type. The asker will preface it with an apology about them being "genuinely curious", and then continue by stating their "concerns" about how the established and agreed upon consensus was reached, and say they "couldn't help but notice" how the "other side" gets "suppressed/censored".

This type of concern-trolling is straight out of grassroots propaganda rulebook (which the asker is either consciously following, or has been a target and victim of themselves), and it's quite depressing how many posters here fall for it and engage the asker in good faith.

> "just asking questions!"

I recently learned that some people call these comments and posts "JAQing off"; such a term isn't going to change anyone's mind, but at least there's something to sadly smirk about when I see the same bad-faith questions posted for the umpteenth time.

You don't follow the guidelines, that's what happening.

>Don't be snarky


Spread to HN? I can't remember a single time when climate denialism was not prevalent on HN. -_-

Welcome to the sad reality.

That doesn't even accurately reflect this current thread. It's just that you're more likely to notice what you dislike.

What's going on here is the afterimage effect. People's general impressions of HN are an afterimage of the things they saw and disliked, which burn deeper into the retina.

Skepticism is healthy and is the essential posture of the Scientific Mind, and is not remotely the same as denial. The cherry picked time series used by the Met are clearly 'bad science' in the name of something 'ostensibly good'. FYI the intellectual authoritarians are much scarier than the skeptics, usually, in the long run. I wonder if this discussion should be more about communications strategies than material science.

It is one thing to not believe whatever crap the media is 'shitposting'. It is another to completely dismiss the fundamental science.

The only thing that is questionable in those graphs is the temperature prediction for 2020 to 2025 because we can't see into the future.

People being reasonable and skeptical?

"Climate change denialism" is a very broad stroke.

This term is always includes not only actual deniers of climate change (rising average surface temperatures), but a lot of other adjacent things, like "why", and "with what effect", and "effective solutions."

To the casual observer it it looks a "science cult." You either believe and abide by it and all its tenants or you're branded a denier, an unbeliever, a heretic.

Not a healthy way to look at science, especially when inevitabley some one thing is later shown to be incorrect and your faith comes crashing down.

Yes imagine we finally get rid of fossil fuel and live in a future with cleaner air and renewable energy everywhere and it turns out that global warming would have killed only one third of the ecosphere instead of the majority. Would be terrible.

Depends on the costs, no? I do not think many people are arguing against cleaner air or renewable energy.

End of humanity. Cost. Infinite.

The costs seem to be on the order of single digit percentages of global gdp for twenty or thirty years. That doesn't seem too expensive even if you only give a small chance to the IPCC being remotely right.

> Depends on the costs, no?


That sounds nice. Please do that.

Exactly right. There are prophets, child saviors, required beliefs that are not to be questioned. Of course it looks like a religion from the outside! It's almost like this was done on purpose to become a wedge issue for one political side. Not a healthy way to look at science at all!

God forbid someone should say "I don't agree that we have enough information to establish a global tax policy given the inaccuracy of previous economic models" - they must be a denier!

It takes away from the real hard work people do when a Swedish teenager is paraded around with a scowl and a waving finger that points at everyone but China. I think it's a mistake and sets the whole work back, but what do I know!?

When it's really about science and not taxes/power, I think more people will accept the ideas.

They really are hyper triggered by Greta. Remarkable.

You know she's one voice out of literally millions arguing that we should do something about climate change? Technically Peta throwing paint at people and ecoterrorists are "in our camp," does that all detract from the facts of climate change?

It's about the science. Seems some people simply reject that because the commonly proposed next steps go against their ideology.

What do you think of a revenue neutral carbon tax? I think they call it "carbon fee and dividend".

> It's about the science.

If it's only about the science, and the science has been settled for a decade, why do we seem to be getting nowhere? Might there be more than science involved?

> Seems some people simply reject that because the commonly proposed next steps go against their ideology.

It may seem that way, and to some degree it almost certainly is, but what if that isn't an accurate characterization of how it actually is? Might it be worthwhile to consider applying the same intellectual rigor that climate scientists use to the public psychology/discourse aspect of this problem, or is that somehow denialist, or something else? The suggestion always receives downvotes, I'd love to know why.

> required beliefs that are not to be questioned

these being?

> When it's really about science

it's about science.

awwww shit

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

u wot m8

Translating to British English...Bloody Bollocks!!!

This is a serious comment. We're boned.

Nothing that the earth hasn't been through before, at much higher degrees.The earth will be fine and will recover. Humans, hopefully, will not.


the rate of change this time is ridiculously high. that is the problem, not the actual temperature

I hear the rate of change argument a lot, but I haven’t been able to comfortably arrive at how the comparison is made. Historic temperatures (pre-nineteenth century) have to be inferred from proxies—ice formations, fossilized tree rings, et cetera. Those, in turn, must be put into a date range based on some form of (I assume) radiometric dating. Carbon dating can get you +- 80 years. The other common techniques have even less precision. Uranium-lead dating can peg down a 2 million year window, for example.

How can researchers say that the rate of change is so much greater now when, not even counting propagation of error, the granularity of measurements pre-nineteenth century is, at best, of the same order-of-magnitude as the WHOLE of the era of modern precision measurements?

EDIT: I realize my question is inconvenient, but downvoting without meaningful response is no way to counter skepticism. This topic gets more religious as time goes on.

Sometimes you can simply count backwards, eg in tree rings of living trees. There are some other problems though:


Ice core data is correlated with solar activity cycles:


> Those, in turn, must be put into a date range based on some form of (I assume) radiometric dating.

Google can tell you precisely how it is done. Government institutions such as NASA, NOAA or the universities (and equivalents in other countries) generally have reliable information (and the information is straight from the source since most publishing scientists work there).

Since CO2 emissions increased dramatically around the 1700s, that 80+- of carbon dating becomes feasible, no?

this is how science works. it is the best model and projection using current data. if you can improve it, please go ahead

You aren't addressing the arguments at all here. With the error bars that black6 suggests, we cannot possibly infer anything of meaning over long periods of time.

I knows how science works. That is why I am asking how we can compare the rate of change when the sample rates being compared are three orders of magnitude off.

EDIT: more benefit-of-the-doubt for orders-of-magnitude difference — three instead of six. For example, if we take the yearly average, that’s a sample rate in the micro-hertz. A sample rate of +-80 years is in the nano-hertz range.

Why can't people just make honest graphs? If you're trying to convince a skeptical person, the last thing you should do is use known dirty tricks for deceiving them.

CO2 and arctic sea ice graphs' vertical axes don't start at zero, making the change look worse than it really is and meaningless without something to compare PPM or km^2 to.

Other graphs use a sensible difference for the axis because there's no meaningful absolute zero.

It would be nice if they aligned the time axes on all of them for extra readability.

The different start dates are a red flag because they might be cherry picking the start date to avoid something embarrassing before that. I guess they just used easily available data which is fine if they don't have the resources to do it more thoroughly, and they explain that for sea level. But it would be more transparent to show a longer history with clear explanation of how start dates were chosen.

Actually, sea level really needs a longer history because it has been rising since the ice age and it's important to separate that natural increase from the anthropogenic one.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact