LostCat – I agree with you that on average the global temperature is rising, and glaciers (particularly in temperate regions) have receded dramatically over the last 50-100 years, and that man has had a hand in this. But some of your facts are a little sloppy and may take away from your message. Since you studied this in college you probably know the following, but they could be misconstrued from your post.

Once the polar caps start to slide from land and into the water, the sea will rise substantially.(Polar Caps can be up to 4-miles deep in some areas)
When you say polar ice caps you are really only talking about the Antarctic and Greenland Glaciers. The ice on the other pole in the Arctic (north) is actually Sea Ice and is typically a few meters thick at most. This ice is constantly moving around on top of the Arctic Ocean The north polar ice cap is not 4-miles deep, contrary to the Santa Claus myth.

Now think of the polar caps. All they have to do is change temperature by 1 degree and they start melting.
This is not the same as the air temperature changing by 1 degree and is misleading. If the air temperature is -20, a one-degree increase in air temperature will not cause melting. Since the air temperature in both the Arctic Antarctic, and Greenland is well below zero most of the time it matters more how much incoming solar radiation there is, so temperature is only one component. Length of the warm season and decay of the freezing season, (changes to which have been observed and documented from satellite time series) amounts of snow fall, and amount of incoming solar radiation may be more important than the average air temperature.

I like your message and enthusiasm, just don’t give detractors any ammo to shoot it down. Also, this was posted in the Off-Topic forum where virtually anything goes.

The climate has always been changing. The last 10000 years have been anomolously static in terms of temperature and weather. Strange that this period would coincide with the rise of agriculture.

I don’t think this post belongs on a housing blog unless you were going to comment on how if you bought beachfront property, your grandkids would be flooded out of their house in the year 2100.

The sea level has risen in the last hundred years, by about a foot, and the overall temperature has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celsius. I don’t see any disasters or mass starvation caused by this.

This whole global warming drum beating by the liberals and their fellow travelers in the media is just an attempt to foist one-world government on the prosperous countries and introduce socialism again.

Funny how after the Soviet Union collapsed that environmentalism has been making a huge comeback. I’m sure peasants in China who make less than $1 per day are going to be worried what the weather’s like in the year 2100.

The wealthy and trustafarians have nothing to worry about or no purpose in their lives so they manufacture disaster scenarios and travel the world bleating about the end of the world unless we all stop sinning (using fossil fuels).

Environmentalism is a religion. God is no longer fashionable among the left, so they have to have something to believe in. The collapse of the Soviet Union left a big ideological vacuum and it had to be filled.

Scientists measure things and try to extrapolate from current data and theories. Scientists who are interested in political careers spout off to the New York Times and anyone else who will listen about what will happen to humanity unless their predictions are taken seriously.

As far as the weather goes, I’d be much more worried about an Ice Age than warming temperatures.

Lost Cat, it could very well be a farce for all we know. The sad truth is that the science is not there to support any conclusions about human activity and planetary warming.

I have a graduate degree in atmospheric sciences so I know a little bit about the nature of the research. However, I am not claiming to be a climate expert.

All of the evidence for human-induced warming comes from numerical models. The output from these models is wholly dependent on how the modeler sets up his/her model.

In my view, there are two very important flaws in climate models.

1. The physical processes determining climate are poorly understood. How much heat is absorbed by the oceans? What other heat sinks are there and to what degree do they affect climate? It’s an extremely non-linear process.

2. The output of these models cannot be verified because of the time scales involved. Short-term modeling results can always be verified. Long-term modeling with a time scale of centuries cannot be verified. To act on their results is nothing but a leap of faith.

I personally don’t believe retooling our economy (a multi, multibillion dollar effort) based on some model output is the way to go.

It appears I’m not alone in that assessment. Here’s alink to the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Please read and discuss. It will tell you why Kyoto never made it to the Senate for ratification.

Global warming or not, it’s a good idea to be environmentally conscious, if only so we have a more pleasant, beautiful and enjoyable environment to live in.

If the threat of global warming spurs us to do things cleanly, then all the better.

The treat of terrorism is causing us to watch out backs. Global warming can likewise cause us to be clean and tidy with our “waste.”

I agree with juice that we need to watch how we pollute our bodies with all kinds of chemicals.

Its settled. Has been for decades. End of discussion.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm