Can any sciencefags explain why people are calling the Texas blizzard a result of global warming...

why not a picture of snow
or texas why a nake girl?

fpbp, it's that simple

Attached: FancyCoarseKrill-size_restricted.gif (538x298, 3M)

Earth warms, ice caps melt, cold water introduced into ocean currents, colder currents create frigid weather.

fpbp. It's a clarion call to the pseudo-intellectuals to start publishing more "peer-reviewed" B.S.

A giant warm chunk of air pushed its way into the arctic, and caused the cold air to end up in areas that it's not supposed to be.

Melting ice caps. Cold water moves from melted ice moves. Cools somewhere. Then the air urrents become cold as well, bringing polar climate to some distant land. But after a while, the cold goes away. That's when INTENSE heat begins in some places. Expect once green lands to become deserts, while some deserts may green for a while. Eventually, everywhere will become hotter. This has nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with the sun.

Blizzard of 1873 swept through and wiped out a lot of cattle heards back then. Texas and the southern plains in general regularly have cold events every 15-20 years. Texas power isn't regulated, so they saved bucks by not insulating anything for cold. That is now biting them in the ass. Then green fags rammed solar and wind down throats, which work well in regular weather but suck balls in bad weather. Battery tech also sucks absolute balls in cold weather, and you can expect less than 50% of what you had after it freezes.

>muh global warming
>no it's muh climate change now
These goalpost moving kikes are never right and never wrong they just change their definitions as they see fit

More extreme weather events more often is the prediction. It's not really scientific to assume all unusual weather is linked to climate change, but the blizzard does align so I can understand how brainlets might get excited.

And no, the right has continues to call it global warming despite the the name changing to climate change more than a decade ago so they can go "huhuhuhuh it cold so how can globe be getting warmer hhahhaha I am very smart" every time, or "WOW they keep hanging the definition to make it fit! Trust the science huh? can you imagine if science was a process of self frequent repeated self correction as our understanding grows and definitions become more precise! haha, I don't think so dipshit!" It's kinda infuriating, especially when there are actual criticisms to be made about climate change fear mongering and valid criticisms of the science.

>change definition once
>omg! is an atom a large solid ball of positive charges with electrons embedded in it or is it a dense nucleus of neutrons and protons surrounded by electron shells of discrete energy levels! Fucking jews keep changing the definition! I can't keep up, how is that even scientific?

An atom is mostly empty space bro, not a solid mass. Filthy fucking anglo kike

Attached: IMG-20210212-WA0006.jpg (700x857, 327.17K)

>mostly empty space
what I said
>a dense nucleus of neutrons and protons surrounded by electron shells of discrete energy levels
If you got past third grade you know these are similar atomic models, just I talk of shells instead of particles.

My point is that "scientists keep redefining this phenomenon so can't be trusted" Is a stupid argument unless you are flat earth tier schizo because it applies to all science. There are valid reasons to doubt the existence of anthropogenic climate change, this is not one of them.

Climate change fear has successfully diverted attention away from other forms of pollution. We’re going to bury the planet in trash and you retards are going to be happy just because we lowered Earth’s thermostat.

Climate "science" isn't real science in that they can experimentally verify their results. They rely on modeling, can't really do an equivalent of the rutherford gold foil experiment that way

...

This is a better argument. Climate science's models can only be tested over very long periods of time, and work with phenomenon that are extremely hard to test under laboratory conditions. Any predictions made in the shorter term are going to be to do with weather patterns, the textbook example of a chaotic system that is hard to predict well in advance. Although I would caution you against criticising the use of modelling, as that is an integral part of the scientific process (you use models to make predictions, and then test those predictions to prove the theory. I have mentioned how this is tricky in climate science already)

I should be honest and admit that I personally lean towards believing in anthropogenic climate change, but i don't really care about people arguing against it as long as it's not dipshit manufactured "moving the goalpost" rubbish. Disagreement is important and should be a larger part of climate science than it is (obviously).

Modeling is fine for simple systems (dft and kmc modeling of periodically repeating systems for example) but for something like climate, where they can't even model the effects of clouds, is just too much for me

They claim that this is evidence of climate destabilization even though if you point out record low temperatures they say "climate not weather."