2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Larry will in fact make a landfall in southeast Newfoundland, not sure about monster hurricane part, but they take hurricanes quite seriously in that region after a dreadful death toll in 1926 out at sea when a hurricane caught the fishing fleet pretty much unawares.

Tropical remnant hits in Newfoundland can be about like the Ophelia event on the south coast of Ireland, but the coastline there is quite rugged and few towns of any size are built close to the tide range, except for a few port facilities, most of the people live well up the hills so a storm surge, while it could do some damage around Argentia (which faces south), is not much of an issue for the capital St John's.

Larry may still have some tropical characteristics until about the time it reaches the Avalon peninsula around 04z-06z (in 24 hours time). The local time zone is 3.5 hours behind your own, so it would be around 0130-0330 local time when the worst of the storm hits. I will post some radar links in the tropical discussion thread later on (if GL doesn't have them already).

As for the Larry hits New York stories, I think maybe that reporter got mixed up by something he might have seen on a local TV station where they were probably explaining how Larry would merge with a front already lying close to NYC now. The NHC have been banging on for days about "large Larry" because somebody there loves alliteration, and yes Larry has been of quite a bloated size for the intensity it managed to produce. There will probably be a bit of wind damage in Newfoundland but the place is built like the west coast of Ireland for the climate they have.

'This is how people get the news these days'

Not all people get their news from the gutter press.

And it is not environmentalists or climate scientist's fault that tabloids will misinform the public.

That is what the tabloids do.

You should know better than to post headlines from these awful publications as evidence of anything other than how terrible these so called newspapers are.

The Irish independent are in between broadsheet and tabloid, in that there is some good reporting mixed in with a load of celebrity gossip sensationalism. There are only a few newspapers left that are conscientious in their reporting. I would place the Guardian in this short list, among papers like the Irish Times,The Washington Post, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald etc

This is not to say that these papers never get things wrong, or take editorial positions that I do not agree with, but they at least try to get their facts right and use journalistic principles

Millions upon millions are starving on our planet right now but man, some real serious issues to ponder here:

Help! Is my quinoa killing the planet?

From almond milk to cauliflower pizza base, not a week goes by without another new health-food fad – and they all come with a catch. Could Deborah Coughlin find a guilt-free, 21st-century diet?

Help! Is my quinoa killing the planet? | Diets and dieting | The Guardian

Yes, because a 9 year old opinion piece in the 'Parents and Parenting section proves that...

You're so tiresome. Care to defend your earlier links about the Capitol riots? Which part of that reporting do you think the guardian lied about?

Yep, Neolib 101. I am not 'delusional', but.. you are predictable. Is there any thought in your head at all that hasn't been put there by the MSM, because, as I observed already, everything you come out with is exactly what they want you to come out with. Boards very own mouthpiece of the billionaire capitalist class.

You talk of 'MAGA' there as if you knew what you were talking about. But tell me, Akrasia, since you brought it up (I think you, like the media, secretly love Trump given the amount of time you and they bring him up) but 'what type of people' support Donald Trump? Clearly you are an expert on the issue so please, educate me.

People like you Oneiric apparently.

People who think they're clever because they aren't fooled by the 'fake news' in the 'MSM'

I am not a 'Neoliberal' btw, and the Guardian is not a neoliberal newspaper. You do not have a clue what you're talking about. And it's pretty sad really.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Reading comprehension failure, yet again. The story doesn't say that on the 9th of October 2030, that the global climate will suddenly switch from stable and hospitable, to instantly become an unsurvivable hell hole. It says that we have to cut our carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 to limit global climate change to 1.5c. You would know that if you actually read the article

Climate change above 1.5c is the threshold that scientists have warned against for decades now.

Previously it was to limit CO2 to 350ppm to stay under 1c of warming, which is the level where climate change has some impacts, but they are manageable on the sale of the kinds of storms droughts floods and wildfires we have been seeing in recent years. We've flown past that target, so we're committed to negative effects. At 1.5c the risk of triggering positive feedbacks are far too high for any sensible person to find acceptable.

What??

"The opening lines literally say 12 years is all we have before all hell breaks lose.  - Oneiric'

The opening lines are 'literally'

"The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people"

The reason you think the guardian is catastrophising all of the time is because you literally cannot read

The reason I think the Guardian is catastrophising is because they always have. And I can't read? I literally posted the evidence you asked me fir regarding the media hyped Capital Hill 'riots' in the very post you sought to belittle.

Guardian said 'Incited by the president'. Reality:

"But the FBI has so far found no evidence that he or people directly around him were involved in organizing the violence, according to the four current and former law enforcement officials."

They straight up lied and created a false narrative, and a false narrative which all the other mainstreams milked for 7 solid months.

What evidence is there that he 'incited' those riots? What did the Guardian tell you?

You shouldn't consider educating yourself a waste of time given that you look foolish calling people Neoliberals when they absolutely are not in favour of laissez faire capitalism, reduced government spending, privatisation, deregulation etc etc

In fact, it makes you look like a complete idiot when you call someone who is constantly on here calling for government interventions in the market to regulate polluting industries, and to increase carbon taxes and introduce incentives and grants, and directly provide infrastructure to transition away from fossil fuels to carbon neutral energy. a 'Neoliberal.'

Lol.

So sad...

You're right it is, but i'm a fan of galllows humour.

You clearly don't know what neoliberal means and it's so sad that it's hilarious.