Image not available

732x420

coldfront_symbol.png

๐Ÿงต Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16472174

It's November 12 and we still haven't gotten a cold front here in South Texas. When I was growing up, we would get our first cold front in mid October. It's literally been above 75 degrees the entire time this Fall.

Is this because of man-made climate change? If so, how big of a deal is it?

Anonymous No. 16472180

>>16472174
Sorry OP but science doesn't recognize the validity of "when I was growing up" as a data collection method. Come back when you have something a bit more relevant.

Anonymous No. 16472322

>>16472174
Realistically probably not too much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

What we should really be doing is acknowledging the frailty and novelty of modern society. Industrial society has only existed for what? 150 years? Compare that to the thousands of years civilization has existed and it's minuscule. Computers have only existed for what? 70 years, and smartphones for 15.

Overall, it's really been a false narrative of "progress" over the past 100 years because a society without fossil fuels is closer to the "default" society. Sure, once we're forced back to the default we'll still have all the accumulated knowledge of math/science over the past 150 years, so there's that.

Anonymous No. 16472347

>>16472174
Last week there was a study published about how microplastics in clouds nucleate ice at warmer temperatures, at a level that could impact both local and global climate models. The truth is, no one has a clue how big a deal climate change will be and the models are essentially an academic circlejerk of unknown and emergent variables. That said, I'd prefer fewer microplastics in my rainwater and less industrial pollution in my air.

Anonymous No. 16472364

>>16472174
If you look at historical records anywhere in the country, weird months have always happened. Claiming man-made issues has to factor in patterns that span years. If some record is broken, notice it's often a record from 80 years ago so then you'd have to say climate change was the reason 80 years ago too.

Anonymous No. 16472726

>>16472364
If it was discovered to be undeniably true that man can have a severely detrimental impact on the climate/healthy functioning of earthly natural systems and if such were continously continued for long still, and doing so would have catastrophic impact on the habaitability of the planet over the next hundreds of years (this is purely a thought experiment, could ask people in 100 and 200 years the same thing) what would you think should be done?

I have no clue about all the truths and falsenesses of climate change, but it does seem to be trends of change, if slightly or generally I'm not sure, I wonder if looking up world data of the last 20 years compared to the previous 200 or so, how many record highs occurred more recent, or other more frequent,
rare natural disturbances.

Again a thought experiment. If it were in theory, possible for man to grossly disturb the healthy harmonies of nature, and furthermore to an existentially detrimental degree, and this was shown to be proven to man, what would you do in such a situation, what would man do.

Anonymous No. 16472730

>>16472726
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=percent+of+record+highs+on+earth+occuring+in+last+10+years

Anonymous No. 16474632

>>16472174
You're a lying nigger, we've had at least one good cold front already that just didn't last very long.