Wolfpack

Just heard on the radio those are the current temperatures of Chicago, Minneapolis and Bismarck at 12 noon in the central time zone. And that's temperature, not wind chill factor.

apple strudel

If you're making a climate change thread I suggest you look up the difference between climate and weather. It's an important distinction.

Wolfpack

I am not making any sort of global warming thread at all. Just giving the good folks in here a weather update in case they have any holiday travel plans.

apple strudel

In the political forum? What a coy way to cover up ignorance of an elementary distinction.

Patriot_in_NY

I thought it was called Global Warming?

Oh, never mind...... You guys must have changed it once the rest of the world realize you were full of *****, and that the globe ain't warming.

Come'on Wolfpack........ Get with the program. Not GLOBAL WARMING, it's CLIMATE CHANGE now.

JackBauer

Another genius who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

How embarrassing.

apple strudel

Climate scientists have been calling it climate change for some time now since global warming tends to focus on temperature but the issue obviously affects a lot more than just temperatures - it impacts the climate as a whole.

Sounds like somebody doesn't know much about the science. No surprise there.

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

That's what the scientists have been saying. It doesn't mean that temperatures aren't increasing, however. You'll have to choose some other topic to over-interpret.

Patriot_in_NY

Convenient that they came up with another term now ain't it. You know, one that's more indeterminate and vague then the last one. That way, we can't get pinned into a corner and can claim that its encompasses more crap. After all, more crap translates to MORE MONEY. .

It's such a joke that you consider this a settled science. The globe is warming some, CO2 levels are rising......... some by human forces (some not). That part might be MORE settled. What we don't have a clue about it, what is the greater ramification or impact is NOT EVEN REMOTELY settled.

The earth has been both, much hotter and with more CO2, and life existed. In fact, the last time, ascendants of humans were on the planet, and their evolution continued unabated.

Stop pretending it's a settled science......... it isn't..... Well, beyond you "climate change" bullys anyway.

Patriot_in_NY

Hey look, another "climate change" bully to come in and insult those of us who realize that there is too much WE DON'T KNOW to call this a "settled" debate.

Embarassing??????? That you post the same predictable dribble ALWAYS. Yes, we agree on that.

apple strudel

Not really. It incorporates the idea of warming and includes a broader definition. You're in conspiracy land now.

If increasing temperatures leads to a less stable climate, how do you describe the entire picture unless you have a new term?

I have no idea what you mean here. The science is very clear, if you've been following it.

Conspiracy land. These scientists make peanuts.

All it takes is understanding of what settled science means, and an understanding of the arguments being made and yeah, it's pretty damn settled.

The greater ramification is ... climate change. Exactly how much? Obviously nobody really knows right now. That's how science at the frontiers works, by the way. You try and answer questions that nobody else has.

Great, so we have nothing to worry about the damage caused by rising sea levels. It would cost the city of Boston billions of dollars alone.

I'm pretty sure you are misusing the word "unabated".

It absolutely is. Rush Limbaugh is not science. The greenhouse effect is well understood and is settled. Man's contribution to rising CO2 is well understood and is settled. Some of the end results are not well understood, but others like rising sea levels certainly are. Read the trillion threads on this board, and the trillion links I have made to real science that supports this.

Bully? Are you kidding me? What is this, Revenge of the Nerds?