Thanks for your comments Londovir... I was very hesitant to take a stand that contradicted two very knowledgeable mets, but after reading your post, I have a little more courage to do so....

It is very true that the Earth is difficult to model, as we certainly know nothing about it on a grand scheme. I've said before, there are tons of feedback mechanisms that are in play and the overall effects are difficult to predict. I've only done gas-phase computer modeling in polar regions, and can tell you that scientists still don't even completey understand all of the particulars of ozone production in the remote troposphere. However, there's no question that there is a human role in this issue. CO2 and ozone concentrations have increased remarkably since industial times and humans have to take some of the blame for this. Population has increased dramatically, and the energy usage has increased at a more significant rate. Sure, there are historical natural cycles, in both temperature and CO2, but you have to consider all influences. It's all about feeback. As science becomes more interdisciplinary, it will become easier to understand the Earth...

Models (including those conducted by the GFDL) have predicted more intense hurricanes, due to higher temperatures, which Londovir discussed. More CO2, higher temperature, more evaporation, more condensation, more latent heat, more fuel for stronger storms. JK (I think... I hope I'm right) commented on a negative feedback mechanism for SSTs. Sure, this is reasonable, but like I said, there are various mechanisms at play, and it's the overall effect that matters. This isn't exactly my area, so all I can do is comment on what NOAA research says.

And one quick comment about ozone depletion (as I read about it on one of the links previously posted)... CFCs (and other halogenated chemicals) were very stable (in fact, their stablity is why they were used) and thus could be transported into the stratosphere. There, they could be photolyzed by higher energy radiation and produce halogen atoms. Halogen atoms react with ozone, and thus deplete it. The chemistry is sound, hell, Crutzen, Rowland, and Molina won the Nobel Prize for this research. In fact (now back to the troposphere, phew), in the Arctic, localized ozone depletion events occur due to halogen atom chemistry. Background ozone concentrations can quickly go to zero! It's an interesting phenomeon, but again, it shows that the chemistry is real. Again, I'm not saying there's not a cyclical pattern of ozone change in the stratosphere. I'm just commenting that again, there is a human influence.

I am a republican, for the record, and I never thought as a kid that I'd be an environmentalist, but there are consequences to our actions. Just because there is debate on what those consequences will be in no way makes us innocent. And, as far as 'wasting tax dollars'... maybe it seems that way because answers are not discovered overnight. Scientists are trying to understand a terribly complex system, and that requires a lot of time and money to do so.