>>933
No, that wouldn't be very ladylike!
I'm going to answer >>931 as well, because I think it's a good question.
First of all, global warming is probably a misleading term. Although average global temperatures are increasing, the effects of the gulf stream slowing down or sea level rise or things like that can have the opposite effect locally. Hence why people often call it "climate change" rather than "global warming".
One of the important things to realise is that the climate is a chaotic system. Chaotic systems require two things:
Changes in the climate definitely involve feedback; the weather on one day will affect the weather on the next day, and so on. Climate is also non-linear, as clouds, storms and rainfall all generally either form abundantly or not at all. That is to say, a small change will not necessarily have a small effect. Once you pass a certain threshold in terms of temperature or humidity, a given type of cloud will be able to form, and will probably form in large numbers.
The scary thing about chaotic systems is that they can be incredibly sensitive to change. Consider this diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chaos_Sensitive_Dependence.svg
Both the black and white balls follow the exact same rules, yet a tiny change in initial position leads to a huge change later on. This has a number of applications to climate change:
Expanding on that last point, I've frankly never understood climate change sceptics, or what have you. Whilst the data is, naturally, highly variable, the underlying principles of, for instance, atmospheric carbon dioxide affecting heat absorption, are incredibly transparent.
What this all really means though, >>931, is that the climate's pretty well fucked.
>>935
What book, if any, are you reading at present?
