“Global Warming” is one of the worst terms to explain a phenomena to the public that has ever been invented. It does not mean that everywhere is getting warmer.

“Global Warming” is one of the worst terms to explain a phenomena to the public that has ever been invented. It does not mean that everywhere is getting warmer. It is “warming” in the scientific sense, where the average energy density of the system has been raised. If the average energy density has been raised, the global climate as a system is free to explore more-energetic solutions to the dynamical equations that govern and restrict it. That means more extremes of both high and low, not just ever-increasing temperature. This misunderstanding, sometimes deliberate, has been ongoing for as long as the term “global warming” was introduced. Climate change is a far better descriptor. Sure, it’s still all driven by heat (otherwise known as vibrational energy), but the delivery system is chaotic, no simple thermometer-style measurement is even appropriate. A physicist feels the wind on his/her face and “sees” a torrent of gas particles falling without recourse down an energy vortex to strike his/her cheek, and this is the viewpoint you must adopt to understand “warming” in the context of climate. Warming means more energy, more energy means more latitude for the system to explore, and that means more extreme events at both ends of the scale. In short, we don’t need “new science”, we need to stop pumping the atmosphere full of stuff that prevents the sun’s energy from be re-radiated away. Man-made chemicals in the atmosphere are making a heat-trap of the planet. Heat traps can become death-traps, at least for the fragile creatures used to living in benign conditions that they’re accustomed to. One last thought… Tipping points are a thing. The gulf-stream/trade wind system is a stable island in the chaotic dynamic that Earth currently enjoys, but push any dynamical system sufficiently out of kilter, and it’s free to find another stable solution, sometimes violently so. Once that second stable solution is found, it may not be possible to “just go back” to the original one. The one where humans thrived - and any subsequent solution may not be anywhere near as beneficial to humans.