Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Before (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday October 16, 2017 @03:30PM from the first-of-its-kind dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The system formerly known as Hurricane Ophelia is moving into Ireland on Monday, bringing "status red" weather throughout the day to the island. The Irish National Meteorological Service, Met Eireann, has warned that, "Violent and destructive gusts of 120 to 150km/h are forecast countrywide, and in excess of these values in some very exposed and hilly areas. There is a danger to life and property." Ophelia transitioned from a hurricane to an extra-tropical system on Sunday, but that only marginally diminished its threat to Ireland and the United Kingdom on Monday, before it likely dissipates near Norway on Tuesday. The primary threat from the system was high winds, with heavy rains. Forecasters marveled at the intensification of Ophelia on Saturday, as it reached Category 3 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale and became a major hurricane. For a storm in the Atlantic basin, this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations. Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.

180 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Those were the days. by ScentCone · 2017-10-16 15:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse!

No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1. Re:Those were the days. by ScentCone · 2017-10-16 16:05 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  Thanks for making my point.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
2. Re:Those were the days. by Frosty+Piss · 2017-10-16 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  ...because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year...
  We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
  
  --
  If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
3. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:44 · Score: 0
  
  Says the AC
4. Re:Those were the days. by PopeRatzo · 2017-10-16 16:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  it has only happened because Trump became president in January.
  
  Man, he takes credit for everything, doesn't he?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · 2017-10-16 17:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The level of panic is not what we have to worry about as the Atlantic boils for the next however many years it takes for the Pacific to switch around to El Niño again. What we do have to worry about is a longer succession of seasons of high ocean temps in the Atlantic and the shift in the cycle caused by global warming. Like all short sighted comments about what is going on the failure here is to see obvious trends and it is these trends to climate extremes that are the thing we have to worry about the most.
  The existence of ocean weather patterns created by the movement of warm water has been known for centuries. The existence of a cycle between El Niño and La Niña has been known for a very long time and the cycle is usually about 4 to 6 years. This has changed and if the cycle continues to expand in years it is a direct result of rapid climate change. The extended duration of the last cycle cause the Pacific blob, a patch of warmer water much further north in the Pacific, something never seen before.
  As we see the global mean temperatures are increasing more rapidly directly because of the corresponding increase in atmospheric C02.
  As a direct result of these rapid changes we can expect a much more violent climate. Plain and simple storms that cause damage will increase in frequency and severity and there is nothing we can do about it accept try to reduce the use of fossil fuels to slow the increase in atmospheric CO2. These are just the inconvenient truths about how messing up our atmospheric gas balance with the unrelenting and ever increasing burning of fossil fuels is causing more trouble than it is worth. Facts do not cause the panic however failure to act does. We still have people who believe in the idiotic NIMBY dictum that "the solution to pollution is dilution" shilling for the energy giants. Scott Pruitt is one of the worst.
  Yes C02 is not a pollutant by definition but a sudden atmospheric imbalance of gases is something which is obviously going to effect our civilization in ways that we might regret. A slightly warmer earth is not necessarily a dangerous thing provided the change is not too fast for us to adapt as a species. Humans are causing an unnatural cycle to occur in atmosphere whether or not we survive our stupidity as a species remains to be seen. Then again just perhaps these short sighted greedy assholes that think they are capable of running the world will teach us to work together as a species for a change. Either that or they will blow us all up and thus solve the very real problem of mankind changing the earth's atmosphere too rapidly. The next phase of Trumpification of truth will most likely be the removal of the data to show what is happening simply do that by dissolving NASA now that muzzling the scientists working there is not working. Make America Great Again is the biggest lie ever foisted upon a peoples!
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
6. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  Global warming has been occurring a long tome (look up the mini ice age) but it's definitely shifted into high gear when the industrial revolution kicked off, well before 1939.
  You talk about doppler radar and all that tech, but conveniently omit that ships have been crossing the Atlantic for hundreds of years and they're very keen on avoiding hurricanes for obvious reasons, they would not take routes placing them into danger if they could avoid it.
7. Re:Those were the days. by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-10-16 17:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For the record, even the oil companies are saying that climate change is a major concern. Being to the right of those guys on an environmental issue really takes a particular kind of dumb-ass.
8. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  Weather is chaotic and freak events happens occasionally. It did in the past, it does now, and it will in the future Climate is essentially where the average of the weather is, and that point certainly looks to be drifting, making the 'outliers' in one direction a bit more likely/frequent.
9. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:41 · Score: 0
  
  No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. /Quote.
  TFS explicitly says 1939. He the fuck did you come to that conclusion?
10. Re:Those were the days. by quantaman · 2017-10-16 17:46 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea?
  <br><br>
  It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.
  Global warming very much is a science, and the researchers involved do examine their data and conclusions with a lot of skepticism and they do a lot of work figuring out how to test their assumptions (I suspect there's a bunch of actual papers dedicated to figuring out if there was a "pacific blob" in the 1600s). Of course there is some uncertainty over how serious the problem will be (though as evidence mounts the problem seems to be getting worse).
  But you also need to be prudent. We're talking about taking mitigating action against the cautious projections. You are correct we're dealing with a lot of unknowns. If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize, this isn't some computer game where someone gave us a nice path to galactic colonization, it's quite possible that the byproducts of industrialization prove disastrous for human civilization.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
11. Re:Those were the days. by whoever57 · 2017-10-16 17:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
  In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
  So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
12. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  So the answer to his question "How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s?" is "because I assume someone somewhere has probobly looked into it maybe and I'm 100% certain without knowing anything about it that I am definatly right."
13. Re:Those were the days. by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-10-16 18:18 · Score: 2
  
  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Too bad this isn't one of those times, eh.
  
  --
  Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
14. Re:Those were the days. by Namarrgon · 2017-10-16 18:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We do in fact have direct observations of ocean temperatures dating as far back as 1662. Thermometers did exist before the days of satellites, even if accuracy and coverage wasn't up to modern standards. Temperatures recorded then weren't even close to what we're seeing today.
  In fact, we have multiple lines of evidence going back much further than that (cited thoroughly in e.g. the IPCC WG1 reports such as Chapter 5, Paleoclimate Archives) that show that the speed of current climate changes are unprecedented in anything like recent history (including ice ages). This is not surprising, considering that we can clearly see from the observational record that levels of greenhouse gases have risen from "more or less normal" to "unprecedented in the last 800,000+ years" in just the last century or so. Our knowledge of past conditions is a lot less limited than you seem to think - maybe try browsing some of the papers cited in WG1.
  Since the observational evidence is entirely consistent with our physical models of past conditions, based on the known atmospheric conditions, solar output, GHG concentrations, recorded volcanism etc, speculation that "it could've been different, we just don't know" won't gain you much traction in actual scientific circles. You'd have to provide pretty solid observational evidence of anomalous ocean temperatures in the past, if you want scientists to accept that such conditions were in any way likely.
  
  --
  Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
15. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 18:29 · Score: 0
  
  Look everybody, it's roman_mir, patron saint of ticket scalpers and price gougers everywhere.
16. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · 2017-10-16 18:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Pacific Blob? How are you so confident there wasn't a "pacific blob" in the 1600s? Do we have satellite observations of oceanic temperatures from the 17th century to back that up? Are you assembling that data from observations? Did they have calibrated temperature probes taking measurements day and night thousands of miles out at sea? It seems to me that a lot of your belief system is built on inferences and assumptions. The largest of those being that the weather events of the 21st century have somehow made a biblical deviation from the norm. Anything approaching a climate "norm" is based on such a limited understanding of the world, it's hard to accept as the truth. Global Warming may be a new phenomenon. But if it is we need to treat it like a science with skepticism, and not like a religion.
  Yes there have been anomalies and let us all hope beyond hope that this is indeed what we are seeing. The Maunder Minimum mini ice age that killed millions of poor people due to starvation and crop failure in Northern Europe and Russia during the Baroque era comes to mind.
  Yes I have a healthy sense of scientific skepticism. But scientific skepticism does not help much when the bear decides that you are supper.
  Who knows? For all we know about the solar system the sun might suddenly go into another cycle that puts the damper on global warming and makes the rapid burning of all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on a necessity for our survival. Some things however we can predict with a fair amount of certainty and with the very recent warming of the earths atmosphere and surface water temps, changes in dangerous weather patterns that will effect us drastically will happen within our life times and that of our children and this is a almost a certainty.
  A rapid move now away from fossil fuel consumption might just save us if there is another mini ice age coming or if we blow ourselves up and in so doing actually test the nuclear winter hypothesis. Then again the MAD policy of the cold war served us well in one regard. At least it kept us from testing the nuclear winter hypothesis. Why some of us insist upon continuing to test the hypothesis of global warming by listening to the fossil fuel industry shills however is MAD in my books given the correlation between recent increases in C02 levels and the recent increases in global mean temperatures!
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
17. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  you are still one exceptionally retarded faggot
  For having a well reasoned opinion? It is obvious that humanity has had an impact on climate, and we need to do something about that. It's typical of your ilk, however, to just make ad hominems rather than having a civil discussion.
18. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  and at the same time downplaying their responsibility, this news are pretty much taken from "the day after tomorrow" and people keeps burying their heads on the sand
19. Re:Those were the days. by Mashiki · 2017-10-16 19:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
  Sure is! Because people froze to death where Washington, DC is now, from temperatures they'd never experienced even in the heart of European winters. They've also died from "bad air" or as it's known today as malaria as far south as central Quebec -- it wasn't the draining of swamps that changed things, it was several decades of cold weather that pushed malaria carrying mosquito's further south. That was all in the span of 150 years too, and it wasn't cold to warm.
  Just keep in mind that there's plenty of "adjustments" to that data, while claiming that the olde gold standard silver-mercury thermometers weren't reliable or anything too. So all those temperature readings have to be adjusted.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
20. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 19:05 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Individuals have discussions, where there can be traces of logic. On the other hand, masses have emergent behaviors, which obey forces of nature.
  So, someone has to reconcile an individual logic with a group think.
  If it were Communism, logic would generally prevail over stupidity of group think in "democracy".
21. Re:Those were the days. by Zocalo · 2017-10-16 19:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think you're mis-parsing the report a bit. What's exceptional here is the *combination* of factors; the strength of the storm, that it's so far east, *and* so late in the year. There have absolutely been recorded storms that are more powerful, further east, *or* later in the year, but not all three at the same time - hence it's of at least some note to those with an interest in meteology or climate change - even the deniers and skeptics, since they need to know about it to try debunk it. Yeah, there's an element of those dumb precedent stats (Oblig. XKCD) like "Party X has never lost the election when they've won seats Y & Z", but there's nothing wrong with the reporting - all it does is state a series of facts about the storm.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
22. Re:Those were the days. by ilguido · 2017-10-16 19:41 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
  Climate data goes further back obviously, but the problem is that data varies a lot in consistency, accuracy, frequency, space span.
  It is like sea serpents, old data, and giant oarfishes, modern data, or krakens, old data, and giant squids, modern data: yes, you have data going back for centuries, but that data is really sketchy and totally useless if you want to infer species distribution, behavioural differences etc. through time.
23. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · 2017-10-16 19:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
  The margin of error on those measurements are huge, and even in those there are rather large swings. Check out the historical rate of change in this reconstruction, or look at around 1100 in these reconstructions. The green in that second graph definitely shows a rate that changes more than our current rate. But again, the error bars are so huge in the reconstructions that a lot of questions remain: the science is definitely not settled there.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
24. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's CO2, not C02.
25. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 20:27 · Score: 0
  
  CO2 is certainly every bit a pollutant by definition solely for the fact that a majority of animals expel this gas as a waste and will die if the levels become too high in a given volume of gases from which it breathes.
26. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 20:40 · Score: 0, Interesting
  
  For the record, even the oil companies are saying that climate change is a major concern. Being to the right of those guys on an environmental issue really takes a particular kind of dumb-ass.
  How do you know they weren't just toadying up to Obama?
  It's not like Obama wouldn't use his "pen and phone" to illegally funnel billions of dollars of federal funds to companies advancing his agenda...
  Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally
  
  The Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law," Collyer noted, but the administration has continued to pay billions to insurers for their extra cost of providing health coverage.
  "Paying [those] reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution," she wrote. "Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one."
27. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  you are a bad person.
28. Re:Those were the days. by oobayly · 2017-10-16 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  He makes only the bigliest of storms...
29. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  the Koch brothers invested in the Trump campaign for a reason...
30. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 21:26 · Score: 0
  
  what about the cyanobacteria revolution that spat out all that O2 and killed off a bunch of extant life at the time (but made our existance possible today)? Was O2 a pollutant then?
31. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  Did you really just asked if the thing emitted that killed off 90% of life on the planet was a pollutant? Ok. Yes, yes it was a pollutant. We are a different species and about a billion years away from that time.
  Two other things we changed out opinions about:
  The sun is NOT the chariot wheel of a god.
  The stars are not holes in the sky.
32. Re:Those were the days. by jabuzz · 2017-10-16 22:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  This is my personal favorite indication of climate change. The Sphinx snow patch in Scotland has melted only seven times in the last 300 years. They *ALL* occurred in the last 75 years, *FOUR* of those meltings occurred in the last 21 years.
33. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, back in those days people who didn't have a clue kept it to themselves. Tell me, since "people have died before" does that mean murder is impossible? No? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
  So, please, stop fucking up the planet because you're a clueless fuckwit who would prefer that those green eco watermelon hippies were wrong than for humanity to survive.
34. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 22:26 · Score: 0
  
  We know they weren't toadying up to Obama for two reasons:
  1) Obama still wanted to expand drilling, which AGW would show is a bad thing.
  2) Under Shrub and Trump they have had to be silenced and told to "go through vetting with PR" and STILL want to keep to the same story.
35. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 22:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Thanks for making my point.
  You are turning up on a forum where quite a few of the people present have scientific education and expecting to get statements like "expect a panic to sound as good" past us as if we were a bunch of daily mail readers incapable of counting our own socks. Even if we aren't climate scientists able to analyse the details of specific models, we are all perfectly capable of reading through the evidence and history of claims and seeing that you belong to a group of people who are systematically lying; Talking about "pauses" and "reversal" where there was none; misrepresenting what other people were saying and selecting evidence.
  When you turn up as first post and think that we can't see that you are a dupe of big oil you are look like a "fucking idiot". If you really believe what you say (and there are some here who do) then the term using the term "retarded faggot" is an insult to both the educationally "retarded" and to bundles of wood who would appear to have more credibility in the scientific space than you ever will.
  Possibly we should be arguing with you point by point, showing how you are wrong because things called "ships" existed before there were aircraft. However, next you would just select a different sock puppet and start to talk about how "hurricanes are good really because they generate more wind energy" or something equally stupid. Occasionally, just occasionally it's best to just call you out for what you are. An (probably incapable of fucking) idiot.
36. Re:Those were the days. by dywolf · 2017-10-16 22:46 · Score: 2
  
  lucky for us, what you think is irrelevant.
  especially since what you think is directly disproven by the actual data.
  also, hurricanes aren't exactly small events liable to be missed without satellites.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
37. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-16 23:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize,
  And we already know they are, because they are repeatedly being surprised; everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
38. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-16 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know they weren't just toadying up to Obama?
  Because oil companies outlast presidents, and they wouldn't have compromised their position just to buddy up to one of them.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
39. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  False. The current mean global temperature is roughly where it was in the 1920s and early 30s. Looking back further shows a very similar trend to what we see today. However, global warming fearmongers conveniently discard all data that shows temperatures that far back because it blows a massive hole in the climate change BS.
40. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-16 23:46 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, how many hurricanes have to devastate the land before we can talk about there might be something wrong? It's not like like we're in any hurry, it's probably too late already anyway.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
41. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 23:48 · Score: 0
  
  You can tell, because a politician said so.
  [Citation needed]
  No, seriously. If you're actually going to claim someone said this, then link or GTFO.
  Of course, if you're just exaggerating for comic effect, then you're purveying FAKE NEWS.
42. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-16 23:49 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure, but I doubt it's due to Trump. IIRC, for a hurricane to form, you need cold, not hot air.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
43. Re:Those were the days. by AmiMoJo · 2017-10-16 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you missed the "global" part of "global warming"...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
44. Re:Those were the days. by parkinglot777 · 2017-10-17 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse!
  No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
  I think those who want to emphasize what has been happening to our climate are ruining the whole point of current climate status. And from what you said, the word "never before seen!" should have not been said because it is not true. Nowadays, the "fake news" is a thing, so people are very scrutinize and will eventually reject the climate issue as a whole because of that. This is a kind of stupidity from some groups that don't want to educate others about what is happening but rather try to advertise/promote themselves using the current issue (politic)...
45. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  Wow! Instantaneous Climate Change Denial. What will they think of next?
46. Re:Those were the days. by ilguido · 2017-10-17 00:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well, 300 years ago Europe was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It'd be interesting to know if the Sphinx snow patch melted sometimes during the warmer period before the Little Ice Age, but we do not know, since data is missing.
47. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  And Soros and Gates and Cook and Bezos and Buffet and how many other billionaires invested in the Clinton campaign for a reason, what's your point?
48. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.
  http://www.politico.com/story/...
  http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
  https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
49. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Of you donâ(TM)t adjust data to account for problems, three youâ(TM)re results are invalid.
50. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? What's going faster than predicted? I've been hearing about this crap since I was in primary school back in the early 80s. When I was young and naive I used to believe it and be scared for our future. Then I grew up, learned some critical thinking skills and noticed that they kept making these predictions of devastation and as the dates past, not only did the devastation not happen, but nothing really changed.
  I support moving to renewables because I'm not a big fan of pollution, but I have never seen a climate scientists make an accurate prediction, so I give them about as much credit as I give astrologers, they get stuff right sometimes, but I think it's more out of pure blind luck and being extremely vague than any actual understanding.
51. Re:Those were the days. by conquistadorst · 2017-10-17 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Back in 1939, when global warming was much worse! No, I'm not saying things aren't warmer. But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
  Agreed, as much as I "bible thump" for global climate change. I really, really detest the political-left's eagerness to jump on every unusual weather phenomenon as proof of climate change. Climate != weather as Macro economics != micro economics. It's as foolish looking at the price of Twinkies at your local gas station to declare a rise in inflation. One rare weather occurrence over the past even 100 years struggles to break past simple anecdotal status. If we could have somehow tracked weather events over the past thousand years, across the entire globe, it would be a heck of a lot easier to dry to draw some tangible conclusions from these events.
52. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  But I do think we're overplaying many current observations (in terms of where and how we're spotting weather conditions with unprecedentedly sophisticated modern tools and record keeping) as being "never before seen!" - when we actually mean, "since we started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft" or "since a few decades ago, because who can expect a panic to sound as good if we include things that last happened longer ago than the beginning of this year."
  You had to read the 1939 part, but did you miss the sentence before it?
  For a storm in the Atlantic basin, this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations. Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.
  Hope this helps.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
53. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We just started using satellites and doppler radar and storm chasing aircraft last year???
  No, but since they haven't seen a storm like that since 1939, current reporting implies it's never happened before. And depending on what network you're watching, it has only happened because Trump became president in January. Try to keep up. That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan. You can tell, because a politician said so.
  By golly, I must say that it's pretty impressive to selectively quote even from the summary, then ignore even that to say that your enemies have a one year attention span, then use your completely made up bizzare strawman to exonerate your man Trump from no claim anyone other that a communist alternate ego of Pat Robertson would make.
  It's really quite simple And by the way, are you really saying that because they reported that "since 1939" thing, that it means "never happened before"?
  Are you really implying that when teh press reports that X number of people killed in such and such, in the worst fighting since last month, that they are saying that a war that might have been going on for years didn't start until last week.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
54. Re:Those were the days. by hey! · 2017-10-17 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  You're right that we don't have conclusive evidence whether this has any bearing on this particular event. To humans hurricanes are powerful, but they are also fragile and often dissipate, not from losing energy as they pass over land or cool water, but from chaotic interactions with other weather systems. The one thing we're fairly certain of under AGW is that there will be a lot more rainfall in tropical storms; that alone will make them more destructive since flooding and its aftermath is the main cause of destruction outside the tropics. However wind speed and frequency correlation to increased temperature is to weak to speak confidently of global warming's effect on those parameters for any particular storm.
  However I don't think we're exaggerating the record setting trends for temperatures. Modern datasets are more precise, both spatially and temporally. But it would take a willful discarding of Occam's razor to imagine any year prior to 1970 is close to as warm as any year after 1980 -- counting from 1880.
  I don't know why you picked 1939, which was cooler than average; 1938 and 1940 were both anomalously warm years globally, in fact records at the time. However neither of those years cracks the current top 40 list. In any case beware of people who choose arbitrary years as benchmarks. They're often cherry picked. How many years did we hear "no warming since 1998", then "no significant warming since 1998"? That was because 1998 was a barnbuster of a record setting year.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
55. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  it has only happened because Trump became president in January.
  Man, he takes credit for everything, doesn't he?
  Well, he comes from a family of immigrants from that neck of the woods, you know. We'll have to watch Pat Robertson on the 700 Club for the straight scoop.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
56. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  How do you know they weren't just toadying up to Obama?
  Because oil companies outlast presidents, and they wouldn't have compromised their position just to buddy up to one of them.
  Plus the Kenyan terror baby was maybe not even an adult when they figured the truth out, then hid it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
57. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  If the scientists are underestimating we might be in a lot more trouble than we realize,
  And we already know they are, because they are repeatedly being surprised; everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)
  I think that methane has been released more quickly than expected. And methane is much more powerful of an energy retention agent than CO2.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
58. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  That wasn't a storm that hit Puerto Rico, it's all part of his genocide plan.
  My very religious, very conservative, but outwardly very normal, and living in a blue state, in-laws honestly believe that that global political unrest and the horrific weather/natural disasters weâ(TM)re having are from god and due to manâ(TM)s behavior recently.
  The funny thing is that theyâ(TM)re half rightâ"quite a bit of what weâ(TM)re facing is âoeman madeâ to a degree.
59. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
  In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
  So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
  Exactly. The measurements are not as accurate as present day measurements, but were accurate enough to get some good science done. That belief system is quite adept at cherry picking, and seems to think that science started with Thomas Edison, and before that, we knew nothing.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
60. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
  Climate data goes further back obviously, but the problem is that data varies a lot in consistency, accuracy, frequency, space span. It is like sea serpents, old data, and giant oarfishes, modern data, or krakens, old data, and giant squids, modern data: yes, you have data going back for centuries, but that data is really sketchy and totally useless if you want to infer species distribution, behavioural differences etc. through time.
  It's too bad that the argument from personal incredulity doesn't account for smart people who can figure out the differences. Because the smart folks didn't believe in sea serpents or Kraken.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The first more modern style measurements of temperature started in the 1600's by Florentine scientists - including Galileo. Cruder temperature measurements were available before, but are of dubious value.
  So no, there are no calibrated temperature measurements back to the beginning of time. And there doesn't need to be. That is because there are other ways to extrapolate data. Certain minerals form only under certain conditions, and radioactive data and geological data can infer temperatures. Ice cores can give atmospheric content. Tree rings can give clues. Put them all together, and you can get a reasonably clear picture of what is happening.
  Now since the age of reasonably accurate temperature readings, it is as clear as beer pee that localized temperatures are not global temperatures, and that when taken overall, the temperatures on average are running higher than they have been. And any one place is not the whole. And smart folks can figure that stuff out from the clues.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
61. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, 300 years ago Europe was in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It'd be interesting to know if the Sphinx snow patch melted sometimes during the warmer period before the Little Ice Age, but we do not know, since data is missing.
  Prove that there was a little ice age. Their temperature measurements were crude, and otherwise it is just stories. Unless we have the exact data, it is just impossible to give it any credence, amitrite?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
62. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:57 · Score: 0
  
  You are assuming that changes to climate happen overnight. This isn't the case. Weather changes happen daily and even yearly. Prolonged changes eventually impact the climate. This is why the drastic impacts of the 1930s added up with the impacts from the massive human population increases of today have slowly been changing the climate.
63. Re:Those were the days. by GLMDesigns · 2017-10-17 02:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  1. We have fairly accurate data points going back hundreds of thousands of years, nay millions of year.
  
  2. We know that mammalian life has been around for 80+ million years (120+ if you could proto-mammalian life).
  
  3. We know that temperature has risen and fallen; CO2 levels risen and fallen, and coastlines have changed many times over the past 80 million years (hell last 80,000 years)
  
  Does this mean we should pollute? F**K no.
  Does this mean that burning fossil fuels is fine; and not caring about adding CO2 is also fine. Again. F**K NO.
  
  But the chicken little approach combined with send-all-power-to-a-central-world-government seems just a little bit suspect to me. As a matter of fact, it's more than a little suspect. It too is in the real of F**K NO.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
64. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Your belief system seems to recognize climate data going back only a few decades, perhaps a century.
  In fact, we have climate data going back further than you apparently believe. There are direct measurements of sea temperatures from the mid-18th century (ships logs) and many proxy measurements, going back far, far, further.
  So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
  Listen. Strange men named Mann dipping a couple of bristlecone pines in the water is no basis for a belief system.
65. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, how many hurricanes have to devastate the land before we can talk about there might be something wrong? It's not like like we're in any hurry, it's probably too late already anyway.
  I agree. Lets party. You alarmists can shut up now.
66. Re: Those were the days. by sycodon · 2017-10-17 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  It was the most powerful Hurricane since, like Last Week!
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
67. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 03:00 · Score: 0
  
  man made global warming is a lie and farce in order to get you to pay your own personal carbon tax
  enjoy exhaling, and getting charged for it
68. Re: Those were the days. by Jahoda · 2017-10-17 03:06 · Score: 2
  
  So let me see if I understand you here... You believe malaria causing mosquitos come from Canada and were pushed south to the Americas by the little ice age? Hmm, why am I somehow not surprised you don't understand climate change.
69. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-17 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  I think that methane has been released more quickly than expected. And methane is much more powerful of an energy retention agent than CO2.
  There turn out to be all kinds of secondary effects, like the increased CO2 emissions from warming soil that we discussed here recently. And since we've exceeded the ocean's (&c;) ability to absorb the CO2, we're getting to find out all about them now.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
70. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? What's going faster than predicted? I've been hearing about this crap since I was in primary school back in the early 80s. When I was young and naive I used to believe it and be scared for our future.
  Back in the 70s and 80s I kept hearing we were heading toward a mini ice age. With better input we can make better predictions, we just have to look at what the data actually says instead of forcing it to match our own assumptions / agenda..
71. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Now since the age of reasonably accurate temperature readings, it is as clear as beer pee that localized temperatures are not global temperatures, and that when taken overall, the temperatures on average are running higher than they have been. And any one place is not the whole. And smart folks can figure that stuff out from the clues.
  This is the part that gets me. Any specific local example is enough to prove your stance, but a specific local example is not enough to disprove your stance. If you are a denier, then record lows in a specific city is enough to "prove" that global warming isn't real, while record highs in another city is "just an abnormality" and not proof that global warming exists. Alarmists will point to the specific city with record highs and declare global warming real while writing off the city with record colds as "just local".
72. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Prove that there was a little ice age.
  Is the Thames freezing over in London, with ice thick enough to hold fairs on it, multiple times with a peak in the 17th century, evidence enough for you?
  
  by-century totals are: 15th 2, 16th 5, 17th 10, 18th 6, 19th 1
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
  http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Thames-Frost-Fairs/
73. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  They do that to avoid even more negative consumer sentiment than they already do. Meanwhile they still lobby for policies that are good for them financially, but detrimental to the environment.
74. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Except Global Cooling was never a thing despite what you seem to think. One paper at a time when everyone else was talking about warming wouldn't even make it to school.
  I'm not sure how you were taught in your school, when global warming was addressed we went over the known evidence, discussed it rationally and concluded that not polluting our environment was a great idea and would help mitigate our effect on climate which is well known by anyone that has ever stood in a greenhouse.
  Peak oil already happened, you just didn't understand what they were saying about it. Oil became so expensive during the Bush years that shale production became viable. That has brought the price of oil back down and bankrupted a lot of countries. A lot of Venezuela's slide into authoritarianism is caused by the crash in the price of oil crashing their economy because they were too stupid to diversify when times were good. This is why you see UAE investing heavily in alternative forms of income because they understand that oil's time will come.
  "Progressives" don't exist, stop putting up boogeymen, nobody is 100% liberal or conservative. We are all people with various priorities. This conspiracy that all teachers are scary progressives with a death grip on the education system is entirely false and is being projected by people like Alex Jones and Breitbart News. Actual intellectuals leaning liberal or conservative love a good debate about the merits of any position that is defensible. That is why there is all kinds of debate over global warming and which factors are contributing to what effects. The fact that it is occurring is not actually being debated anymore though since that is indefensible given the preponderance of evidence. There will always be people that try to shock the world into better funding their projects unfortunately and they muddy the arguments. The world isn't going to end, but living here is absolutely going to get more and more difficult.
75. Re: Those were the days. by Mashiki · 2017-10-17 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  So let me see if I understand you here...
  No, the part where we had far warmer weather in the north and malaria causing mosquito's were pushed back south to warmer climates as cold weather pushed their livable zones south. This isn't rocket surgery.
  I'm surprised that you don't understand climate change either.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
76. Re:Those were the days. by Mashiki · 2017-10-17 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you missed the "global" part of "global warming"...
  You mean like the "sub tropical low depressions" that we get here in Canada? Or the part where you don't get how far north malaria carrying mosquito's used to range across north america. Well I guess that does make it global doesn't it?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
77. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  So, yes, we can tell that the rate of climate change is unprecedented.
  Sure is! Because people froze to death where Washington, DC is now, from temperatures they'd never experienced even in the heart of European winters. They've also died from "bad air" or as it's known today as malaria as far south as central Quebec -- it wasn't the draining of swamps that changed things, it was several decades of cold weather that pushed malaria carrying mosquito's further south. That was all in the span of 150 years too, and it wasn't cold to warm.
  Just keep in mind that there's plenty of "adjustments" to that data, while claiming that the olde gold standard silver-mercury thermometers weren't reliable or anything too. So all those temperature readings have to be adjusted.
  It has little to do with the temperature.
  Malaria is only rarely found in Canada for the same reason that it is rare in the southern USA, and that is in fact the clearing of mosquito breeding grounds.
  Native malaria infections in Canada wasn't eliminated until the early 1900's with the last cases in the 1950's. So, I don't see how a period of colder weather had anything to do with it.
  https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ipid/2009/385487/
  http://www.rideau-info.com/canal/history/locks/malaria.html
  https://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/canada/malaria-canada/
78. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  malaria causing mosquito's
  mosquitoes. Moron.
79. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · 2017-10-17 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I truly hope you are correct. And wish you all the best in what ever you do for a living. We will very soon see if you are right. I would suggest however that you financially invest in real estate in Puerto Rico. The market is cheap there and I am sure you can make a killing. They might also need some good salesmen to teach them about the advantages of buying nothing but new American Made fossil fuel devices instead of replacing their destroyed infrastructure with solar and wind devices. Heck the opportunities for making a quick buck are almost endless there!
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
80. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 08:07 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. Just like when there's a heatwave in NYC you don't accept that for AGW. Because it was a single event.
  But the age of the ice tells you when it was last formed. And it doesn't melt then re-form to continue the same identity. So it hasn't melted for X years means it wasn't warm enough to melt for at least X years.
81. Re:Those were the days. by deviated_prevert · 2017-10-17 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  PS yes I am prone to hyperbole. Using a phrase like the Atlantic boiling was just an attempt to get some smart people to wake up to the fact that right now the surface water temps there are no where near a seasonal norm. As the Greenland Ice shelf melts who knows what the end result will be, we can only make educated guesses. Major earth quakes where there were non historically? This is the point, we are playing Russian roulette with our atmosphere and sooner or later one or more of the bad outcomes of human caused global warming will occur. The blinders of denial do not help when you put a gun to your head.
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
82. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  It's only happened since somany dik-kyke muzzi-wogs took over County Cork. Alt-right has fucked with the weather, weaponized it and sent it againt fer'rn ragguts. Long may it blo.
83. Re: Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Stop it with your moronic smartquote
84. Re:Those were the days. by greythax · 2017-10-17 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to tell you, but you are not a camel or a polar bear. The fact that mammals were here for 80 million years in adverse conditions means absolutely dick to this conversation. We are concerned about what the earth was like when HUMANS were here. Because, you know, that is what we are. And the climate over the last 10,000 years especially, because it has been very good to us.
  
  But the chicken little approach combined with send-all-power-to-a-central-world-government seems just a little bit suspect to me. As a matter of fact, it's more than a little suspect. It too is in the real of F**K NO.
  Evidently you suffered a stroke before you hit post and thought you were in a whole different thread, but let me address this anyway. A little bit of chicken little is actually justified, because the last time we had a rapid climate change event 70,000 years ago, WE ALMOST WENT EXTINCT! So, maybe being a little proactive isn't as irrational as you seem to suggest.
85. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of Venezuela's slide into authoritarianism is caused by the crash in the price of oil crashing their economy because they were too stupid to diversify when times were good.
  To a Progressive "a lot" could mean anything like, say, 0.01%. The thing going wrong with Venezuela is 99.99% Socialism.
  The rest of your response is standard issue Progressive half truths.
86. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · 2017-10-17 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)
  Wow no, the opposite, the models over-estimate, as multiple studies have shown. Graph.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
87. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  This is the part that gets me. Any specific local example is enough to prove your stance, but a specific local example is not enough to disprove your stance. If you are a denier, then record lows in a specific city is enough to "prove" that global warming isn't real, while record highs in another city is "just an abnormality" and not proof that global warming exists. Alarmists will point to the specific city with record highs and declare global warming real while writing off the city with record colds as "just local".
  What you are describing is the political ideology based people. On either side. They will walk in lockstep with with they are told to think.
  What to do about that? I don't know. I suspect it might be the actuarial tables in the end.
  Every single spot on earth experiences weather. any given day, week or year, every single spot experiences weather. Cold year in some spot? Weather. Warm year in some spot? Weather.
  Several years of non average cold or warm weather in any spot. Hmmm - interesting. Decades? Now we are talking climate.
  As well, when temperatures are taken from all of these spots over a length of time, the places eperiencing a colder than normal year oa a warmer than normal year really tend to average out over the year. So an increase or decrease in average temperatures in any year is very interesting.
  When decades go by and the trend globally is still warmer, deniers have to start coming up with differential hypotheses to explain why this is not anomalous. So far their taking a political stance would make Trofim Lysenko beam with pride, secure in the knowledge that politics and especially ideology can always defeat science still carries the day. But only until mother nature bitch slaps us into defeat.
  So the long refuted cherry picking of once not fully understood data, and "Michael Mann is an asshole" comments only serves as proof to those who have no intention of disbelieving what their owners tell them to believe. Stay true, deniers, your will will bend the laws of physics into submission. So how about denying the existence of earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes - and you will save the world billions, as each disappears.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
88. Re:Those were the days. by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-10-17 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Prove that there was a little ice age.
  Is the Thames freezing over in London, with ice thick enough to hold fairs on it, multiple times with a peak in the 17th century, evidence enough for you?
  Not at all. That is fake news. Unless you can show the verified data from someone who was there and will swear on the holy Bible, I'm not going to believe it. That's silly, because the Thamnkes could never freeze over. All an old wives tale, told over and over again until it reaches legendary proportions.
  See how denialism works?
  
  by-century totals are: 15th 2, 16th 5, 17th 10, 18th 6, 19th 1
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs http://www.historic-uk.com/His...
  Well there is a great controversy and I refuse to believe that such an impossible thing ever happened. And thos people reporting the little ice age were asshole liberals anyhow.
  I will continue to deny because my denial trumps any ginned up proof you can offer. All fake news put out by Ice age alarmists!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
89. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-17 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Wow no, the opposite, the models over-estimate
  Right, tell us another
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
90. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · 2017-10-17 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  I link to actual peer reviewed papers, and you link to Washington Post. Did you even read the things I linked to?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
91. Re:Those were the days. by Altrag · 2017-10-17 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  The problem isn't that we're seeing one 80-year-old record being broken.
  The problem is that we're seeing record after record after record being broken, and then being broken again the following year and the year after that.
  One hurricane record being broken is interesting. A dozen various hurricane records being broken in the span of two months is worrying, even if many of them are only decade-old records.
  Especially when its happening almost exactly as predicted by the climate scientists that continually get written off as being hacks. How many times do they need to be proven right before people start considering the possibility that some of their more dire predictions may also be more than just "leftist propaganda?" When the ice sheets melt and New York is permanently under water? When we're all living in biodomes near the arctic because the rest of the planet is uninhabitable? Maybe not even then?
92. Re:Those were the days. by Altrag · 2017-10-17 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  You need hot water though, and he's trying to get America into lots of that..
93. Re:Those were the days. by quantaman · 2017-10-17 17:23 · Score: 1
  
  Progressives have a death grip on the educational system. It's good that some, like you, can deprogram themselves. Even by the 80's, things like the population explosion,
  Global population is still rising, the rate of growth is slowing now, but I'm really skeptical it will continue.
  
  peak oil,
  For the US, peak oil has come and gone and conventional production has plateaued world wide. Even ignoring CO2 there's only a limited amount of oil in the ground and we're using up the stuff that's easy to get to. People aren't extracting from oil sands and shale oil because they're such a wonderfully convenient resource. They're crappy sources that are becoming feasible because there's no longer enough easy stuff to get to.
  
  --
  I stole this Sig
94. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-17 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that we actually CAN measure temperatures from years and even centuries back. At least in some areas where geological or biological records enable us to look at them today and measure what happened. Wood from a tree that's a few 100 years old can tell you a lot about the climate in which it grew.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
95. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-17 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Old thermometers were less accurate than modern ones. This is true. But even they were not off by 2-5 degrees Celsius. We're not talking about differences of 0.x degrees here...
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
96. Re:Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-17 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm sure you can provide us with that data so once and for all the fearmongers get shut up, right?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
97. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-17 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because the news media is incapable of reporting on scientific papers! Good one!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
98. Re: Those were the days. by Opportunist · 2017-10-17 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Yes it was. The GOE was one of the most horrible and disastrous events in the history of our planet. Mass extinction. Think the time when the dinos went the way of the dodo was horrible? Peanuts. This was the big one. It's a miracle that life somehow made it out alive.
  Well, maybe, when the next sentient being evolves on this planet, they'll look back to our little experiment with temperature here, stretch out in the boiling hot tub (ya know, perfectly adjusted to room temperature) and wonder how anyone could see an average planet temperature of 70C as "pollution" or even anything but the fundamental requirement for advanced life.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
99. Re:Those were the days. by GLMDesigns · 2017-10-18 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  When humans were here? You mean through Ice Ages (and the intervening periods of global warming)? Coast lines have changed a lot in the last 2.5 million years. (Not to mention the 24 or so Ice Ages).
  
  Some are pretending that Global Warming == a human extinction level event. This is chicken little type thinking. (See previous post - we as a species, plus mammalian plus insects, plants,.... existed quite well with levels of CO2 far higher than today.
  
  Again, this is not me saying I'm in favor of polluting or burning fossil fuels but the chicken little sh!t is hurting your cause.
  
  --
  If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
  Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
100. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · 2017-10-18 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read the things linked to? Because I read yours.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
101. Re:Those were the days. by drinkypoo · 2017-10-18 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Did you read the things linked to? Because I read yours.
  The first thing you linked concerns minor short-term discrepancies which are irrelevant in the larger term; compare that 1993-2012 period to 1984-1998, which runs the other direction. Here is a response to the second. The third site didn't load without trusting them to run code on my PC and your graph was given without context so I ignored your other "sources".
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
102. Re:Those were the days. by phantomfive · 2017-10-18 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  At least you read them, so that's something.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
103. Re:Those were the days. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-18 20:40 · Score: 0
  
  London is one datapoint. How do you generalise that to all of Europe, or even Scotland? How do you know it wasn't just cold in London?
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:04 · Score: 0

Maybe now Europeans will take the lead on proving climate change deniers to be the wanton idiots they are.
1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  Why? They're your idiots.
2. Re:Good by Opportunist · 2017-10-17 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, most of that bullshit is coming from across the pond, and they are already being hit routinely by hurricanes and floods. Especially in the areas that are adamant about there being no AGW.
  If that is any indicator, getting hit by hurricanes might turn the Euros into deniers.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
what Hurricane by AchiestDragon · 2017-10-16 16:17 · Score: 2

name failure ,, Hurricane , its a tropical storm or typhoon , but once above between 30 and 40 latitude it becomes an Arctic Cyclone hence ex / former /recently separated hurricane , as it got a devorce from having a name in the process, as arctic cyclones are not normaly named
1. Re:what Hurricane by Xest · 2017-10-16 18:59 · Score: 2
  
  The UK started naming heavy storms that hit it's shores a few years ago, it doesn't have to be a hurricane or a cyclone under the UK's naming criteria, and I believe that's where the name has come from.
2. Re:what Hurricane by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of - the UK has it's own naming scheme which runs in alphabetical order and there's only been one so far so this should have been called Brian as the second. There is another rule, however, that if a storm is named by the American National Hurricane Center it keeps that name as it loses its hurricane status.
3. Re:what Hurricane by oobayly · 2017-10-16 21:14 · Score: 2
  
  Yup, Met Eireann (in partnership with the UK Met Office) did so in order to raise public awareness of inbound storms. People apparently react better to "Storm Aileen" than they do to "Category 1 Storm", though you still get idiots standing on piers.
  It's probably helps to mention that while these conditions are nothing like those encountered in Caribbean, the British Isles and Europe are unused to extreme wind conditions, so [many] people aren't aware of how quickly these conditions can overpower you.
4. Re:what Hurricane by bazorg · 2017-10-17 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I would have called it a chazzwozza.
5. Re:what Hurricane by RockDoctor · 2017-10-20 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably helps to mention that while these conditions are nothing like those encountered in Caribbean, the British Isles and Europe are unused to extreme wind conditions, so [many] people aren't aware of how quickly these conditions can overpower you.
  Hey hey, less of the broad brush there! While a bowler-hatted corporate thief in the City of London might not know what gale force or storm force means in real life, Britain, Ireland, Norway have enough of a seafaring tradition to know exactly what it means. Hell, thirty years ago I was 100km east of the Shetlands, watching 15m waves breaking up onto the decks as the 1987 "not-a-hurricane" storm hammered up the North Sea. A couple of years before that, I was using two ice axes to keep myself in contact with the ground in strong winds in the mountains.
  I don't know when the US national weather service puts it's weather warnings out on the radio, but here they come out at 05:00, a lunchtime update, an early evening update, and the full report again at just before 01:00. Obligatory listening if you're going to sea, into the mountains, or just anywhere outdoors tomorrow. It's got a weird sort of poetry to it.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
6. Re:what Hurricane by oobayly · 2017-10-23 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, I did say "unused", not "never encountered". Also "100km offshore" and "up a mountain" are not locations that the average person finds themselves during storms, let alone hurricanes.
Complete. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:34 · Score: 0

Thanks Slashdot for the meme that no storm hit Ireland. Ever. Before now.
My grandparents disagree with that hypothesis. But what's to say with people who lived through a storm compared to internet crap.
Re:Where no storm had eaten before? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:34 · Score: 0

"Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had Come Before"
Ireland gets nailed first, Britain has to settle for sloppy seconds.
Forecast for the Irish Western Coast- Cold, wet, and windy. So pretty much normal, but more of it.
It's time. by freeze128 · 2017-10-16 16:41 · Score: 1, Offtopic

It's totally time for a Scorpions comeback tour!
Digging for first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:44 · Score: 1

it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.
Had to dig deep and add three qualifiers to sensationalize this one.
The farthest north...
in the Atlantic...
this time of year...
in the last 77 years.
1. Re:Digging for first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well, yes, all three features are features of storms. What YOU are whining about is that a storm like this has not happened in recorded history. All that happened in 1939 is an ex-tropical storm got this far north. Was it a 20mph storm? YOU don't care. YOU just want to pretend that your ignorance of reality is "rational" because "The other side is worse!".
  Doesn't work, even if it were true, retard.
2. Re:Digging for first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  Bah, this is amateurish. Real qualifier chaining comes from sports announcers.
  "Looking back at all four games that these two teams have played in Topeka during an eclipse since the rules change in 1941 while a fan named Timmy had a front row seat, the team with the shorter average height of starting lineup won."
3. Re:Digging for first by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  I have no idea what you are about or why you are so angry.
  I was being critical of writers sensationalizing news to the extreme that this one had to dig into historical records and add three more qualifiers before the storm became a first of some kind that was not immediately apparent (i.e. the first storm this week or somesuch).
  Are you defending the "other side" as sensationalizing news is a good thing to do? What side am I on? A storm "like this" has happened in recorded history. It happened 78 years ago.
  The only thing I am ignorant of is what your worldview is and why you are so incredibly angry that you are insulting someone for...whatever it is you are angry about.
ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by knorthern+knight · 2017-10-16 16:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Highest winds 1-minute sustained: 120 mph (195 km/h)
Lowest pressure 961 mbar (hPa); 28.38 inHg
Fatalities 78 total
Damage $50 million (1961 USD) (Estimated)
Check back later whether Ophelia will *REALLY* be "worst evah".

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
1. Re:ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by dryeo · 2017-10-16 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  The summary qualified it, to quote
  
  Additionally, it was the farthest north, at 35.9 degrees north, that an Atlantic major hurricane has existed this late in the year since 1939.
  A bit later in the year then Sept.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
2. Re:ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by deviated_prevert · 2017-10-16 19:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And this is exactly the point Debbie was Sept 16 now we are now dealing with high water temps in the Atlantic causing major storms in Ireland a full month later. A huge difference and like comparing apples to oranges. The warm surface water is staying around much longer and is spreading much further to the north and this is a real problem.
  It might not even be over quite yet for the Caribbean and even perhaps the Gulf of Mexico. Check out NOAA the water temps are still way up for this time of year. The mid 80s f is still well up in the range that intensifies storms to hurricanes. The mid Atlantic is still over 80 so we could still see some dangerous storms, here is hoping that this is the end for this year at least for the sake of the poor people of those countries. Aside from which, some of Trumps friends in the oil industry might have to delay their bone fishing and that would be an absolute catastrophe.
  
  --
  This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
3. Re:ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by hey! · 2017-10-17 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Right. I was going to post this. Ophelia was simply maintained hurricane force winds further east than any tropical storm on record.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:ex-Hurricane Debbie hit Ireland Sept, 1961 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1987.
  More powerful and in the middle of October...
Re:Complete. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:57 · Score: 0

Found the guy who can't even read the summary.
After by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 16:58 · Score: 0

"this is the farthest east that a major hurricane has been recorded during the satellite era of observations."
So the headline should read:
Ophelia Became a Major Hurricane Where No Storm Had After
Re: Complete. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:04 · Score: 0

Found the guy who can't understand beyond said summary.
Re:Weather, not climate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:11 · Score: 0

Found the straw man guy.
Re: Complete. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 17:51 · Score: 0

Found the guy who can't even read the summary
I think most people started having convulsions at BeauHD's idiotic headline.
Re:Whatever happened to that? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-10-16 18:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I'd be willing to make an exception for "Donald Trump is an utter failure as President".

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Weather, not climate by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 18:59 · Score: 0

Found the straw man guy.
Drill baby drill!!!! Frac you too while your at it! Put the peddle to the metal and don't worry there is a gas station right around the corner and we can out run any storm with our 454 no problem. Even as the tornado drives straws through plywood the oil centric straw men will still be around when it comes to this topic!
The last time any of Ireland... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 20:00 · Score: 0

...got pounded this hard was during supermodel Kathy's wedding night.
1. Re:The last time any of Ireland... by Errol+backfiring · 2017-10-16 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Ireland is one of Europe's tax havens. In fact, the Maasticht treaty (the start of the Euro) still forces the European countries to compete in tax giveaways to foreign corporations. So the Irish are used to being screwed over. Just not by the weather.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
2. Re:The last time any of Ireland... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Ireland is one of Europe's tax havens.
  Only a small time one. They're nothing compared to Britian for running tax havens. Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, I'm sure other Crown Dependencies too.
This is what should really bother you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 21:46 · Score: 1

The level of panic is not what we have to worry about as the Atlantic boils for the next however many years

No. The level of panic is when two thousand Bangladeshi show up on your doorstep wondering if there's room at the inn. You may have a lot of ammunition - But they have more people.
AC
1. Re:This is what should really bother you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  I think you underestimate the number of bullets the average Texan owns.
2. Re: This is what should really bother you by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  But it is 500,000 people turning up on their doorstep!
No.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 22:14 · Score: 1

That would be stupid and dangerous. It was called Hurricane Ophelia. It transitioned into extra tropical cyclone Ophelia. It's safer just to keep the name and lineage with some addendums regardless of what semantic label it technically belongs to accordinglong/lat only. There was nothing arctic about this storm system.. It's profile and characterists are largely dervied (especially in this case) from where it came from not were it ended up.
Also the term tropical (which implies warm and coming from the South) is justified in the name above arctic (which implies cold and coming from the North).
It brought warm air. Your categorization would actually make things worse. The public waould think it was coming from the North and brace for cold instead of powerful warm winds.
Re: Complete. Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 23:09 · Score: 0

Yeah, lots of people here haven't bothered checking reality, just leapt from who said it to what they "know" it means.
You DO know what idiocy means, right?
Yet you're the first to buy into islamic hysteria. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 23:28 · Score: 0

Which rather proves for you and many many others it has fuck all to do with reality and only with identity. Your complaint is, likewise, entirely identity politics and can therefore be dismissed summarily.
Got any evidence there was a blob? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-16 23:46 · Score: 0

No? Then the null position (deniers LOVE the null position, as long as they think it helps them) is that there wasn't. Go find one.
Wow climate change! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 00:52 · Score: 0

Wow it'a because of climate change!
No - this is Elon's fault by zerofoo · 2017-10-17 00:53 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm patiently waiting for my Model 3, and every day that goes by without one means that I drive my gas-guzzler to work.
1. Re:No - this is Elon's fault by philmarcracken · 2017-10-17 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Lets be real here. You didn't get it because it was electric but because it has autopilot and you want to masturbate on the way to work
Until Global Warming Becomes Extreme Global Coolin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:17 · Score: 0

I'm just waiting for all this global warming to reverse course and turn into extreme global cooling..... The Day After Tomorrow-style.
Re: Whatever happened to that? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 01:30 · Score: 1

We know, comrade.
Prepare for emergencies... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 02:17 · Score: 0

Get a hand crank radio/flashlight/cellphone charger for emergencies. Don't leave home without it.
Re:Whatever happened to that? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 02:33 · Score: 0

You've got one mightily warped and twisted scale if you find Trump at the 'Better' end...
Re:Whatever happened to that? by Barsteward · 2017-10-17 02:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

what are you smoking? Pass it round.....

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Storms in 1588 by tomhath · 2017-10-17 02:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

We don't know if the big storm off the coasts of Ireland and Scotland that destroyed much of the Spanish Armada in September/1588 was a hurricane. Probably every bit as powerful as Ophelia though.
1. Re:Storms in 1588 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  If you're gonna play the IDK game, then you don't know there was even an armada in the first place, let alone it being in September. They didn't have Cesium beam atomic clocks after all. Shit, in 1588 there might not have even been an Ireland and Scotland to be off the coast of, you don't know. Fuck, now that you mention it, I'm not even certain there's an Ireland and Scotland today since I've never personally seen it with my own eyes. -----keep being "skeptical" and this is the kind of bullshit logic you end up with. Next thing you know, the public will be electing a reality TV star and world wrestler....
Panic slowly by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-10-17 03:37 · Score: 1

I will agree with the point that one storm, even an extraordinary storm, is neither confirmation nor refutation of global warming. Global warming is real (the science really is pretty solid, despite the doubters), but it is a global, long-term thing. One storm-- even one extraordinary storm season-- is not global warming.
Go ahead and panic if it makes you happy, but it should be a long-term panic about effects evincing over the next fifty to a hundred years, not a "this is it, right here, right now" panic.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Do you hate plants? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 03:50 · Score: 0

Because carbon is gud. Its gr8 4 the plants! Just look at Venus!
Besides these sort of storms happen all the time, like once every centry or couple centries. Having a few of these ridiculous storms every decade or so is just a fluke, stop being so alarmist.
- Signed shit for brains.
Kochs against Trump, for Pence by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 03:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
Wow, I didn't know whether to mod you +1 informative or -1 off-topic, since you are right, and you cited evidence and gave links (thanks!) ... but the whole discussion is off the topic.
So instead I'll just comment as AC.
Yes, the Koch brothers very specifically did not invest in the Trump campaign. I will point out, however, that they have funded Pence, and in turn he has been very supportive of them:
https://www.thenation.com/article/vice-president-mike-pence-would-be-a-dream-for-the-koch-brothers/
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339283-pence-stops-by-koch-brothers-conference-in-colorado
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345449-pence-to-keynote-koch-brothers-event-in-august
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486253693/despite-ties-to-vp-pick-mike-pence-koch-network-still-refuses-to-support-trump
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/14/indiana-gov-mike-pence-has-close-ties-charles-kochs-money-network/87083956/
Congratulations Ophelia !!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 03:57 · Score: 0

This is a wonderful and historic event. The tropical storm formerly known as Ophelia has successfully transitioned into hurricane Ophelia. She is proud and strong and changing the way we see tropical storms. It's very progressive. She is the first trans-Atlantic trans-tropical trans-hurricane.
With some luck, and maybe a Github account, she can work at Mozilla and help diversify the Internet with progressive trans-technologies like Rust.
You go girl !! ** jazz hands **
We've been tracking storms for generations by rsilvergun · 2017-10-17 06:04 · Score: 1

you know that, right? Google the phrase "Farmers Almanac". The data isn't as good but it's out there. And it all points to something well worth panicking about if we weren't all too busy just trying to get by.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Climate change reversing - Ophelia downgraded by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 07:38 · Score: 0

Climate change reversing - Ophelia downgraded to a storm.
Non-deniers to blame.
Climate change now accelerated to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
Its all a conspiraceee I tell ya to get a free bacon sandwich!
You weren't being critical, you were whining. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 07:39 · Score: 0

Moreover, it is meaningless to go "I was just being critical" since you have to have a point to your criticism other than denial of the claims. Obstinacy and refusal to look is not skepticism.
Climate change still ain't real, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 09:44 · Score: 0

Shit like this will continue to happen until steps are taken to prevent it. That means taking our pollution of the planet seriously.
Re: Whatever happened to that? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-17 11:07 · Score: 0

tap three times if you want to escape the troll farm.
Re:Whatever happened to that? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2017-10-17 18:20 · Score: 1

what are you smoking? Please don't pass it round.....
TFTFY.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.