News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by netsharc on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @11:27AM (#21922169)
I can't help but ask if you have an agenda.. is it to say "See, the NASA graph shows it's not much worse than previous years, climate change is nothing to worry about!"?

The graph starts in 2014, that's not exactly a "pre-climate-crisis" year...

Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by longtom on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @11:49AM (#21922392)
LOL, you guys have a really sensitive "climate denial sensor". I am about as critical of ignorant consumerism as it gets. For example I do not think millions of people need to travel >200 miles a day. But I am also aware that reducing consumerism is associated with a risk of mass unemployment and social unrest. Nonetheless I desire context. It's just my need as a nerd to get the full picture rather than "look at this scary context-less number".
Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by majewsky on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @12:46PM (#21922859)
You want the full picture, yet post a graph that starts at 2014?
Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by nabla9 on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @12:45PM (#21922853)
It's not an agenda. News sometimes miss important context.

The Brazilian forest fires this year are a good example. It took weeks until we learned that the forest fires are not significantly worse than previous years. Brazil has been burning at the same rate for many years.

Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by hydgv on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @12:11PM (#21922567)
Pretending that fires have gone up 10x[] this year is an agenda, too

[]Yeah made up number, not the point

Re:Bushfires in Australia so big they generate pyrocumulonim... by scrumbledober on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @11:29AM (#21922195)
it starts in 2014 and shows a pretty clear upward trend for such a short time period