If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months   (slate.com) divider line 420
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4349 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



420 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 08:38:58 AM

GORDON: I see lots of words about how stupid some people are, but I see absolutely nothing to answer this one question.... who gives a shiat?

If humans as a species cannot handle 1 degree of average temperature change and an ocean that is 1 inch deeper, then it deserves to perish.


That's at the pretty low end of the current estimate, given by libbie libs at the CIA and DoD. 2 degrees and a foot deeper, which isn't much more, would be a very serious matter, no shiat.
 
2012-11-18 08:39:45 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


Wow, you do know that your link says the exact opposite of what you claim it does, right?

Of course, aviation's real impact on climate probably has nothing to do with contrails. In 2005, NASA's James Hansen published a study to that effect. He found that, even if the number of contrails were quintupled, global mean temperature would increase by just 0.03 degrees C (0.05 degrees F.). Aviation emissions, which are rising dramatically, are the true culprit.

Additionally, they're not quite sure whether they raise or lower the temperature. I stand by what I say, the effect from contrails is tiny, and it certainly doesn't correlate to a 2 degree temperature increase as wippit says.
 
2012-11-18 08:44:17 AM

jack21221:
Additionally, they're not quite sure whether they raise or lower the temperature. I stand by what I say, the effect from contrails is tiny, and it certainly doesn't correlate to a 2 degree temperature increase as wippit says.


From the link I posted:

"from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."

The effect got cancelled because the nighttime temp compensated for the daytime temp. But it was still measurable, assuming it wasn't a coincidence. As someone else mentioned, we'd need to have a few more days of no-traffic to test the theory.
 
2012-11-18 08:50:49 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: born_yesterday: HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.

Oh, look, a cyanobacteriolomist. Show me what one looks like. Too small to see with teh naked eye? Likely goddamn story.

Why yes, idiots never rest, do you perhaps not.


Hey, if deniers can have a forum to spout their idiocy, we deserve one to. I represent the group "Americans Against Science not Everyone Studies". Our motto is, if we can't understand it, well, something.

You "scientists" have been making some inroads against us on the "climate change" front. We had everyone right where we wanted them, denying that change was even occurring. We had them scoffing at pictures of glacial recession, including ice sheets the size of states breaking off into the ocean. We had them drooling in incomprehension of ocean current data. We put a few Ferrari's in the right scientist's hands, and discredited your whole movement.

Now, you've forced our hand again. Now, people are ignoring their gut instinct, and actually acknowledging the data. So we've got to move on other fronts. We're still pretty strong on evolution, so we just have to hold that flank. So our new advance will be in the field of microbiology. Do you really think we won't be able to turn the tide? "Oh, these invisible bacteria changed the atmosphere of the whole planet." Yeah, you stick that in the pipe of the average moron and see how long the cat stays in the bag.
 
2012-11-18 08:52:23 AM

THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.


That was done intentionally to make the math easier and the null hypothesis harder to reject. It wasn't intended to be right. If you'll note, I also ignore all actual temperature data too.
 
2012-11-18 08:54:42 AM

wippit: "from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."


But this isn't what you said originally. You said the global temperature was two degrees warmer. Your link says there was little net effect, and a lack of contrails would likely lead to a net COOLING, not warming. Additionally, this still doesn't address the fact that they only looked at a 3 day span, and any changes could be explained by natural variation in that short time span.
 
2012-11-18 08:54:52 AM

jack21221: wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.

You cannot draw that conclusion from that data.

1) A span of a couple days FAR too short of a time to get any meaningful data, so even if the Earth were 2 degrees warmer (and I have my doubts), you cannot draw any conclusions from that.

2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.


Yes, but the mind control agent they release acts as is a potent greenhouse gas.
 
2012-11-18 09:03:43 AM

jack21221: wippit: "from roughly midday September 11 to midday September 14, the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit."

But this isn't what you said originally. You said the global temperature was two degrees warmer. Your link says there was little net effect, and a lack of contrails would likely lead to a net COOLING, not warming. Additionally, this still doesn't address the fact that they only looked at a 3 day span, and any changes could be explained by natural variation in that short time span.


So, I originally said "Hey I read something" and tried to remember what it was
I found an actual link that explained what it was I actually read
I clarified what I said by stating the daytime and nighttime temps cancelled each other out, but the effect was measurable.
You come down on my because of my original statement, even though I've already said the effect cancelled out because it was colder at night.
 
2012-11-18 09:18:11 AM
Ric Romero on the scene here...Right-wingers just want to keep living ostentatiously, even if it's right up to the brink of extinction, and are going to plug their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you" so they won't have to change in the presence of stark data.

From killing almost all 50,000,000 American Bison in ten years to sopping up every last drop of fossil fuel from this planet...It's our Gawd-given manifest destiny to live out the writings of Ayn Rand!

To even suggest that we should think about scaling back on our consumption! We are the penultimate life form on this planet, so there is no need to preserve it beyond us! If every tenth person in America isn't driving a GMC Yukon 85 mph down the expressway an hour each way to and from work (where they'll work over 50 hours per week with maybe 2 weeks off each year), then there's something wrong with our economy.

So, fark you, you book-learnin' sciency types! I've got a life based on testosterone to carry forth...
 
2012-11-18 09:22:05 AM

NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.


oi46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-18 09:28:29 AM
According to THEIR OWN MAP, NOAA shows that the Aleutian Islands, the tip of South America, and what looks to be Hawaii all had record coldest temperatures! Looks like global warming is a MYTH after all!

LIEBURALS: 0
GOD-FEARING TEA PARTY PATRIOTS: INFINITY + 1
 
2012-11-18 09:29:50 AM
Kinda reminds me of when parents refer to their baby's age in terms of an absurd number of months.
 
2012-11-18 09:35:49 AM

david_gaithersburg: Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked?


This is a blatant, long debunked lie.

The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used in scientific literature since the early '70s. If you have any experience doing searches of scientific papers you can easily look it up. But I'm guessing that, since you're a denier, you've probably never been near a scientific paper ... that's what them evil intellectuals read!!.

Both terms are still in use today.
 
2012-11-18 09:36:30 AM

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.
 
2012-11-18 09:38:11 AM
So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?
 
2012-11-18 09:41:16 AM

Ow My Balls: From killing almost all 50,000,000 American Bison in ten years to sopping up every last drop of fossil fuel from this planet...It's our Gawd-given manifest destiny to live out the writings of Ayn Rand!


Just sayin.

The wholesale slaughter of bison happened before Ayn Rand, and even before the Republican Party (though the Manifest Destiny arguments of Polk would have made him more of a Republican--though oddly not a Whig).

The rest though, are spot on. Even to the point of fossil fuel consumption skyrocketing shortly after The Fountainhead was published--though that's probably a coincidence.
 
2012-11-18 09:42:14 AM

david_gaithersburg: Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked?


Huh? The term "global warming" was tossed because G.W.Bush didn't like it. This is well documented

Interesting that Frank Luntz (the guy who lead the committee) has done a U-turn since then and now goes around saying that warming is very real and man-made.
 
2012-11-18 09:44:29 AM

aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?


That would be a good idea if this was an ozone layer problem. But that issue was somewhat addressed years ago when scientists brought it forward.

Since it didn't impact the oil industry there wasn't this "but you can't be 100% sure so we should do nothing" movement. So there were actually some changes made which at a positive impact on the issue.

/it is funny how idiots claim "we are arrogant to think we can affect the environment" when the ozone depletion and the subsequent recovery are clear cases where we already did
 
2012-11-18 09:46:12 AM

Solid Muldoon: Science is a liberal conspiracy.


That should be a t-shirt or something.
 
2012-11-18 09:47:02 AM

Farking Canuck:
The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" have been used in scientific literature since the early '70s. If you have any experience doing searches of scientific papers you can easily look it up. But I'm guessing that, since you're a denier, you've probably never been near a scientific paper ... that's what them evil intellectuals read!!.


Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".
 
2012-11-18 09:47:05 AM

wippit: I read something once that, the few days after 9/11, when all the airplanes were grounded, it was actually an average of 2 degrees warmer on the planet - no white contrails to reflect sunlight back into space.


2 degrees is a huge change for a global average. It is highly unlikely that the miniscule coverage of contrails could have an measurable impact ... much less a massive one.
 
2012-11-18 09:47:59 AM

Farking Canuck: aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?

That would be a good idea if this was an ozone layer problem. But that issue was somewhat addressed years ago when scientists brought it forward.


Funny how the same scientists who were right about ozone are now wrong about CO2 (apparently...)
 
2012-11-18 09:49:23 AM

aevorea: So what you're saying is that it's time to buy stock in any sunblock lotion company?


If Emma Watson really is doing a nude scene in her next movie, then stock in any lotion company will be a winner.
 
2012-11-18 09:50:31 AM

Joce678: It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".


From the Bush Administration, if I recall correctly. They didn't like the word "warming".
 
2012-11-18 09:51:36 AM

nmemkha: Yes, but the mind control agent they release acts as is a potent greenhouse gas.


Not happy with the current global warming argument and you want to throw chemtrails in to the mix...oh brother.
 
2012-11-18 09:51:44 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Lsherm: so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it,

Yes. It's established science (see also: geology, paleoclimatology, paleontology) that this has happened before.
What?
You say the human organism is altering its environment?
No farkin way!
Hint: Creatures alter their environments, sometimes irreversably. It's how the atmosphere became oxygen rich. 

Adapt or die, idiots.


The difficulty is that we have a low tolerance for changes. In that instance - - we are like the fruit flies (and MANY other species ): we're very near our point of intolerance. Our boiling point. This is something that science has also studied. Our sources of food are also near theirs.

The difficulty of relying on adaptation is that the success rate isn't in our favor.

Why not simply agree that CC does exist and that, if we haven't exceeded the tipping point, then we only have a small window in which things could be fixed?
 
2012-11-18 09:52:26 AM

Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.


How do you define "tiny area?"

www.pbs.org
www.pbs.org
 
2012-11-18 09:52:32 AM

Joce678:
Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".


Agreed. But I couldn't care less what the public uses.

In science, neither term ever went away ... and it is well documented. And I think that is the better argument to point out how the denier case is built on lies.
 
2012-11-18 09:54:42 AM

NobleHam: Of course, the globe has warmed. Somewhat. There is still no evidence that this is anthropogenic, and the CO2 hypothesis is getting weaker all the time. If the world is warming because the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 200 to 350 ppm, I'll move to Mars and enjoy the warmth there.


i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-18 09:55:01 AM
We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.
 
2012-11-18 09:55:50 AM
moviemusereviews.com
Consider: One, probability is a factor which operates *within* natural forces. Two, probability is *not* operating as a factor. Three, we are now held within un-, sub- or super-natural forces. Discuss.
 
2012-11-18 09:56:43 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Adapt or die, idiots.


We will adapt as best we can. But if we let the warming run out of control the impact will be massive both economically and in the loss of human life and in human suffering.

The best plan is to mitigate as much of the warming as we can while adapting to the changes that do happen and are already happening.
 
2012-11-18 09:57:07 AM

AurizenDarkstar: Jesda:

On a slightly unrelated note, "Scientism" has become a religion of its own, though it's certainly more favorable than worshipping Xenu. People who don't understand academia, how data are collected, how research is published, and how research grants are earned are inclined to blindly say "THE SCIENTISTS SAID" without understanding statistics, the theories, or how they were analyzed. That's arguably a product of the grade school textbooks we grew up with which often declared "Scientists say," without going into further detail or exploring controversies or differing opinions and conclusions. Textbooks tend to emphasize information retention over knowledge and analysis. But again, this is blind ideological allegiance to "science" is probably preferable to "Jesus says..."

I read this and realize that you really must never have listened to your teachers in school. Going by your comments of science being a 'religion of sorts', that is. Do you have any clue how science works and how it's actually the antithesis of religious thought? Unless you can point out where in many of the world religions that they create a hypothesis, actually test it, and either come up with a scientific theory (which is a lot more than the so-called 'guess' that most laymen believe them to be), prove it to be a law, or change your hypothesis (if it's wrong) and test it over again?

Going by the fact that science is self-correcting (when done right, and not being skewed by people who wish to make profit off of the end result), I would rather trust the scientists about changes to the Earth and it's atmosphere than to put 1 drop of belief in what skeptics might have to say.


I think you're interpretation of his conclusion is wrong. He isn't saying that science is a religion but that people with poor understanding of science can often argue about science the same way religious people argue theological topics.

Jesus says... Scientists say...

I agree with that and see it happening at a university level all of the time. In fact, his comment reminded me of what Thomas Kuhne argued.
 
2012-11-18 09:58:03 AM
going for a run in shorts later this morning

/twin cities
//anecdotal
///comfy & bothersome
 
2012-11-18 09:59:05 AM

dennysgod: We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.


If a carbon dioxide increase affects global temperature with a net positive, then the amount of dihydrogen monoxide evaporated from the oceans would increase as well? Cause and effect? Anyone ever study that?

/legit question, not trying to troll.
 
2012-11-18 09:59:14 AM

THE GREAT NAME: So here's the thing. Warmist alarmists would have you believe that while natural fluctuations do occur, they only manifest as while noise,


Rubbish.

This "alarmist" believes the complete opposite: There's only one source of heat around here (The Sun) and only changes in atmospheric composition can significantly change the Earths's surface temperature.

ie. Wherever there's a warm or cool period, something is going on in the air.

This is supported by millions of years of atmospheric composition/temperature data trapped in the Antarctic ice and backed up by many other sources (fossilized tree rings, etc.).

It's also provably true that man is changing the atmosphere, that greenhouse gases have been rising since the industrial revolution at the exact same rate as man has been increasing his use of fossil fuels.

The fact that so many people are failing to put 2+2 together just shows how well the USA-driven climate change denial campaigns are working.
 
2012-11-18 10:00:27 AM
Yes the climate has changed before but

a) not as rapidly, unless a Mega Volcano or Deadly Asteroid was involved

b) not caused by sentient creatures who have the technological ability to slow down or even roll back some of that change

There are many species which can't adapt as rapidly as global warming is occurring. Trees can't pick up their roots and move away from the equator. Slower-reproducing animals have issues too.

If we allow climate change to cause a massive extinction event, it means we're pretty much a bunch of assholes. The sentient version of Mega Volcano or Deadly Asteroid.

This doesn't even include all the reasonable arguments in the realm of enlightened self-interest. Such as, poor people in 3rd world countries don't just lay down and die amidst flooding and famine, they will try to flee in large numbers to countries that are still keeping it together. Also, horrible tropical diseases spreading further out from the equator.
 
2012-11-18 10:02:06 AM

dennysgod: We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.


I remember all the way back to when that joke was funny. I was wearing my favorite HyperColor sweater in the theater for the latest Ninja Turtles movie, when my beeper went off so I went outside to use a pay-phone. My friend Dave (we called him D-funky-fresh) told me he read this great joke in Mad Magazine, so I hopped on my 10-speed with the Vanilla Ice stickers all over it and went to his house to drink jolt and play Battletoads.
 
2012-11-18 10:02:16 AM

THE GREAT NAME: stuartp9: GAT_00: In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

First you take on Tatsuma, now you take on all the climate change deniers.. I finally decided to start using the "Favourite" tag.

Actually, GAT_00 assumes monthly temperature anomalies should be independent. Which is obviously wrong.


That's not at all what happened. Do you want to read that again and try one more time?
 
2012-11-18 10:02:25 AM

wippit: Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.

How do you define "tiny area?"


Um, yeah. I think they only stopped flying in the USA. The rest of the world was business as usual.
 
2012-11-18 10:05:12 AM

Farking Canuck: Joce678:
Sure, but the phrase in general use by the public last decade was "global warming".

It was a deliberate, US Government-led campaign that changed the vernacular to "climate change".

Agreed. But I couldn't care less what the public uses.


You should, because they're the only ones who can vote for a change of policy.
 
2012-11-18 10:05:55 AM

Joce678: wippit: Joce678:
2 degrees warmer over the entire planet because a tiny area of it had no tiny contrails covering it?

Uhuh.

How do you define "tiny area?"

Um, yeah. I think they only stopped flying in the USA. The rest of the world was business as usual.


They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.
Also, What's the percentage of air traffic driven by North America? I don't think Africa or Australia generates much air traffic
 
2012-11-18 10:07:21 AM
Birdwatchers who keep detailed records have been noticing that migrating birds -- the ones that show up in spring and leave in fall -- have been arriving earlier since the 1960s. American Robins are showing up in parts of the Arctic where they were never seen before. Those damn robins and their anti-human agenda!
 
2012-11-18 10:12:00 AM
You know, the largest part of the problem with Global warming is that it gets used as an excuse for every failed policy to come out of the Democrat party for the last ~80 years. From industrial policy, to regulation, to what-have-you, Global warming is the excuse that poor economics, the Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and various other bogeymen have failed to provide.

the problem is that, unlike above, there is an actual threat from global warming. Unfortunately, by making a partisan issue out of it, the Democrats just make everyone else dig in their heels. What if, instead of wasting money on high speed rail lines no one is going to ride, or solar panels and wind energy, we simply raised gasoline taxes to internalize the negative externality and spend the money on Federal, State, and Local roads? Or, if we implemented a cap and trade system in addition to higher taxes, we spent the money on flood control projects (like wetlands restoration) or addressing these problems. You could actually address several problems at once, but the Democrats won't do it because it's not "Green" enough -even though it actually helps address several problems at once.
 
2012-11-18 10:14:27 AM

wippit: dennysgod: We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.

If a carbon dioxide increase affects global temperature with a net positive, then the amount of dihydrogen monoxide evaporated from the oceans would increase as well? Cause and effect? Anyone ever study that?

/legit question, not trying to troll.


Yes
 
2012-11-18 10:16:13 AM

wippit:
They also stopped flying to the USA. So the entire North Atlantic and North Pacific.


Yeah, well, those pics are obviously cherry picked from completely cloudless days, cropped and contrast turned to the max to show the contrails. If they were anything like representative there'd never be a blue sky over the USA. Ever.

GIS "USA from space" if you don't believe me. Funny how you don't see a single contrail there...
 
2012-11-18 10:16:48 AM

Baryogenesis: NobleHam: Sure, I have some bias. So do those on the other side of the issue, particularly those who have a career which depends on a crisis. Based on my knowledge of greenhouse gases I find it very hard to believe that the increase we have seen in CO2 levels thus far could possibly be responsible for a greater than 1 degree F rise in temperatures. Even including methane doesn't account for the increases which some studies claim we've seen so far. Those studies are flawed as I have mentioned above. If I'm wrong, and if they're right, I still don't believe CO2 is responsible. I think it's more likely that the heat we have produced on Earth through combustion is a more likely source of global warming than any heat trapped by greenhouse gases, the levels of which are still far too low to produce any significant warming, particularly over such a short period of time.

It sure is nice to know that you don't think CO2 is responsible. I'm sure you'll provide a detailed explanation of that assertion any minute now.

In the meantime, here is the strength of the forcing from CO2 and other sources:

[www.realclimate.org image 594x459]


You have to explain what that means, though. That's part of the disconnect between people who want to believe & people who don't want to believe.

You can't throw up a chart with a bar, and say, LOOK AT THE BAR!!!! OMG!

1.6 Watts per meter squared... I'm not saying it's inconsequential, but a bar graph doesn't explain anything on its own.
 
2012-11-18 10:17:50 AM

Hunter_Worthington: You know, the largest part of the problem with Global warming is that it gets used as an excuse for every failed policy to come out of the Democrat party for the last ~80 years. From industrial policy, to regulation, to what-have-you, Global warming is the excuse that poor economics, the Japanese, Chinese, Germans, and various other bogeymen have failed to provide.

the problem is that, unlike above, there is an actual threat from global warming. Unfortunately, by making a partisan issue out of it, the Democrats just make everyone else dig in their heels. What if, instead of wasting money on high speed rail lines no one is going to ride, or solar panels and wind energy, we simply raised gasoline taxes to internalize the negative externality and spend the money on Federal, State, and Local roads? Or, if we implemented a cap and trade system in addition to higher taxes, we spent the money on flood control projects (like wetlands restoration) or addressing these problems. You could actually address several problems at once, but the Democrats won't do it because it's not "Green" enough -even though it actually helps address several problems at once.


Right. By acknowledging that climate change exists, that humans are contributing, and that we need to develop solutions... We're politicizing the issues. Certainly not the party that insists there's no such thing and that focusing on forms of green energy is a bad business strategy.
 
2012-11-18 10:19:57 AM

Egalitarian: Birdwatchers who keep detailed records have been noticing that migrating birds -- the ones that show up in spring and leave in fall -- have been arriving earlier since the 1960s. American Robins are showing up in parts of the Arctic where they were never seen before. Those damn robins and their anti-human agenda!


Ask anybody who's done *anything* outdoors or traveled much since the 1960s...
 
2012-11-18 10:23:55 AM
according to the article the record warmest October was in 2003, almost a decade ago, so things are getting cooler.
 
Displayed 50 of 420 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report