Well put Paul Y.

Sad though that some will still not see a distinction and try to hammer your round thoughts into a square opening.

I will state this though, I am certain I am a skeptic. I told myself that this morning.

In 1977 my father wrote, "the projected release of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion may lead to severe changes in global climate by the end of this century or shortly thereafter." Seemingly my father pointed to predictions that have come to pass. In 2003 the greatest heat wave to strike Europe in at least 500 years, and perhaps ever, killed at least 52,000 people. In 2007 we saw a tremendous melting of arctic sea ice. At what point will skeptics acknowledge that they are mistaken? Are you going to wait until it is too late do do anything?

Chris Crawford says on a different thread...

and it is a no-brainer that an increase of more than a couple of degrees would have economic impacts measured in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.

Reply: Just like increased hurricanes, right? Is this truly a no brainer Chris? I suppose if you blame everything on global warming, from earthquakes to jellyfish, then yes, perhaps(not that you have). How arrogant to think that you can pindown these figures without history as your guide for these assertions. We learn everything from the past and nothing from the future. You CANNOT prove this. It is part of a chaotic, extremely complex theory. There are simply too many variables for this no brainer assumption.

Meanwhile... the COLD continues to cost the world hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. You have to consider the offsets. You are looking at things on a single-sided, linear sense, which is a HUGE no-no...ecspecially in the AGW debate. You should know better.

And as we continue to debate, the REAL battle grows in the part of the world that contains the worlds greatest commodity, oil. I assure you it will get worse in the middle-east, and the economic and human impact will be absolutely catastrophic. And you are worried about AGW and a recession? What happens when our ally Israel bombs that Russian built nuclear facility in Iran? Everything will be just peachy after that, right? Why dont you use your supercomputers to calculate how severe things will get as a result of a world war in the middle-east. I assure you my scenario, that is unfolding before our blindfolded eyes, is scarier than your scenario.

But lets keep talking about a chaotic, noisy theory, and bury our heads in the sand in order to dodge the real bullets.

Is anyone listening? Hello...tap..tap...is this thing on?

Did your fatehr also write some sort of proof that the warming is caused in majority by CO2 release from fossil fuel combustion?

Also if it was the greatest heat wave in at least 500 years, you must have some inclanation as to when the last heat wave of that magnitude came, so please enlighten us as to when that was and also how much CO2 was released through fossil fuel combustion. That would be great.

You wonder why people are skeptical even though you just said that such a heat wave has happened LONG BEFORE MODERN FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION.

Rich,

Put down the Ron Paul pamphlet and back away slowly!

This is a science blog, not a conspiracy theory workshop.

Hi Charles Barton,

In 1981, while working at a National Lab, I was also convinced that global warming was going to be a serious problem based on information I had received from a well known climate scientist. Recently, I bothered to check the facts for myself, and realized how dubious the whole thing is.

In 2003 the greatest heat wave to strike Europe in at least 500 years, and perhaps ever...

The hottest temperature ever recorded in Europe was 122 degrees in the year 1881. 2003 didn't get close.
Europe Seville, Spain Aug. 4, 1881 122 50
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html

In 2007 we saw a tremendous melting of arctic sea ice.

According to Hansen, the 1920s and 1930s were warmer in the Arctic. There were several well publicized traversals of the Northwest Passage at that time.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

While taking my morning run at -7F today under clear skies, it occurred to me just how unimportant CO2 is as a greenhouse gas. On cloudy nights, the temperature stays in the 20s. On clear nights, the temperature drops below zero. The dominant greenhouse gas is H20, not CO2.

As Olympia Beer used to say "It's the water"

Charles,

WE have no more control over what is DONE about AGW than we do about the cyclical climate change.

Large companies, GE, Philips, Westinghouse, BP, Politicians on both side of the isle now see AGW as a huge money maker. They will push the AGW theory until their pockets overflow.

I case you have not heard, the AGW proponents on this web site call the examples that you have given WEATHER.

Here's a new theory being touted by the environMENTALists. We're running out of dirt. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/348200_dirt22.html
I Kid you not.

When will the insanity end?

Patrick,

Very astute observation about H20 as a greenhouse gas. I lived in South Florida for some time, a notoriously hot and humid place. I recall one August night several years ago, where on the 11 pm news, the reported temperature was 85 F and the heat index was 100 F. I don't remember the exact humidity (somewhere around 85-90% I think). The dew point was above 80 F all over the local maps and the meteorologists described it as "soupy." In fact, it was so humid when I went outside, everything was covered in condensation and the defroster in my car was rendered useless.

I believe the "low" for the night dropped all the way down to 84 F. Strangely, I don't recall any of the news stations reporting excess CO2 in the air causing the temperatures to remain in the mid-eighties throughout the night.

I would like to see an experiment done, or if one has already been done, I'd like to see the results of it for a modified "ball in the box" experiment. Make the distribution of gases in the box match as closely as possible those on the earth. Increase and decrease CO2 levels as you wish, starting at a low of 200 ppm up to however high you want to make it. Do this with varying levels of humidity and extract exactly how much extra heat retention can be attributed to each gas.

This is still far simpler than the climate of the earth, but I'd be interested in the results, nonetheless.

GSN... you are 0 for 3 and not surprisingly short.

1. Ron Paul is a little out there for my vote.
2. No, this is not strictly a science blog. It also encompasses economics and politics. In short...oil for one, and us burning it...remember?
3. Which conspiracy theory would that be?
a.) Iran going nuclear, compliments of Russia? Nope, that one is...true. http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4009401
B.) Iran threatening to annihilate Israel? Nope that one is...true. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48268
c.) Israel preparing to blow up that nuclear facility? Has not happened yet, but its in the works. http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/world/europe/2008/01/19/Russia.Military/

I dont see any conspiracy here, do you?

Can we get back to discussing increasing fuel efficiency, seeking alternative fuels and reducing our dependence on middle-eastern oil? These 3 of my concerns also tie in with AGW, but for different reasons. Thank you.

alan k -

Don't fret, this is not new ...

There was a great panic about losing our topsoil and erosion back in the 30's.

... but these days we have the computing power to model the situation ... maybe we'll handle it better this time.

"Even the most ardent agw proponent should understand that we need to know how much warming has occurred or will occur in the future, the precise role man is playing (so that we can slow the process), what is being affected by it, and the long-term implications of the warming."

And in the same spirit the Allies really jumped the gun in WWII. They should have waited until they had a really accurate count of Axis forces, estimates of the cost of fighting the Axis vs doing nothing, good models of what different levels of response would achieve, and so on.

In fact history abounds with absolutely irresponsible leadership that blithely took action rather than wait for a full understanding simply because it was the only rational thing to do; thank God we have moved beyond that.

This is a bit off topic, but it brings together many of the issues we've been discussing into one package. I'd like to offer an extended analogy that might help undecided people figure out all this hooha over global warming.

Let's suppose you haven't been feeling well so you go to the doctor. He examines you and orders some tests. When he gets the test results, he says, "Hmm..." and orders some more tests. Then he tells you, "I'm afraid I have some bad news for you. You appear to be suffering from Gore's Syndrome, a degenerative disease associated with the thyroid gland. Your body is unable to properly regulate its temperature. Unfortunately, we have no definitive test that will tell us with certainty whether or not you truly have Gore's Syndrome, but from the evidence available to me -- your test results, your medical history, and so forth -- I believe that there's a good chance that you do have Gore's Syndrome and I recommend that you begin taking medication for it."

So you ask about the medication. It turns out to be expensive: $300 per month for the injections, and you'll have to have them every day for the rest of your life. Moreover, the medication has some side effects: incontinence plus excessive flatulence.

But it gets worse: researchers have recently found a link between eating beef and the progress of Gore's Syndrome, so you'll have to stop eating beef. You can continue to eat white meat and fish, but no beef.

So you ask the doctor, "What happens if I do nothing?" He tells you that, if you do nothing and you don't have Gore's Syndrome, you'll be just fine. But if you do have Gore's Syndrome, then you'll start having some problems. The disease attacks your nervous system, so first you'll start having some occasional shaking in the hands and feet and some rare losses of memory. The disease will progress, but it's impossible to say how quickly it will progress. If you're really lucky, it might not get beyond the shakiness and memory loss, but more likely the symptoms will grow more frequent and the shakiness will spread to other parts of your body. And if you're unlucky, it could go so far that you won't be able to walk. But, on the bright side, nobody ever died of Gore's Syndrome.

Well, naturally you want to make sure before you take such a big step, so you get a second opinion. The second doctor goes over the test results and agrees with the first doctor. You're still not sure, so you get a third opinion and then a fourth opinion, and they all agree that you probably have Gore's Syndrome -- but they all say that they can't really be sure.

So you get on the Web to do some research of your own. You discover that the American Medical Association and the medical associations of every industrialized society in the world support the claims made by your doctors.

However, you also find a number of websites denouncing Gore's Syndrome as a hoax. Some of these websites appear to be funded by MacDonald's, and some appear to be funded by the Cattleman's Association. There's also a website run by Senator Maxon of Texas (a big ranching state) denouncing the whole thing as an ugly hoax perpetrated by health nuts who want to force us all to eat nuts and berries. "Steak and hamburgers are as American as apple pie!" the Senator declares. "And french fries and milkshakes -- them too!" You find websites with cartoons showing a bunch of dirty hippies beating up a helpless cow as they burn the flag.

On some websites, you find furious debates between Gore's Syndrome asserters and deniers. The deniers point out that Dr. Gore, the discoverer of Gore's Syndrome, was convicted in a case involving water rights (this was over a hundred years ago in Arizona). They argue that there is no proof that Gore's Syndrome exists. They argue that the clinical data for the medication used to treat it has some statistical flaws. They argue that doctors are really just scamming people, trying to get them to take lots of blood tests and prescription medications. They argue that the cases of people suffering from memory loss and muscular shakiness were really misdiagnosed.

Well, with all these people arguing that Gore's Syndrome is a hoax, now you're really confused. And the treatments will cost a lot of money, and they do have some bad side effects. Your friend Patrick points out that you'll never really cure the disease anyway, so why fight it?

So there you have it. Your doctors, the AMA, and all the experts say you could have Gore's Syndrome. A bunch of people on the Internet say that it's a hoax.

What do you decide to do? Take the medication, or wait until you have proof that you have Gore's Syndrome?

Chris,

Cute story, but nothing more than a semantically driven way of pushing your agenda.

How's about we change it so that Gore's Syndrome is an idea created by the same doctor's who originally called HIV/AIDS, GRID.

Or how about the Doctor who created Gore's Syndrome controlled all the data, and made a few "changes" to his data that changed results.

Or how about Gore's Syndrome's treatment would cause a complete change to the infrastructure of your life. The treatment would prevent you from doing anything.

Or how about if Gore's Syndrom were deemed as naturally occuring, and unavoidable, and that the treatment is championed by the same company who makes it and profits from it. Gore's Syndrome is just a part of life.

Hyopthetically speaking, hypothetical situations are fun!

At $300 a month I'd take my chances and do nothing. In the meantime I would keep scouring the net to find good info that confirms or denies it's existence. I'd also keep a close eye on myself to see if any inordinate symptoms appear.
So far I seem healthy enough, nothing out of the ordinary that hasn't happened before. I still get constipated sometimes, but it was much worse when I was younger.

CC,

Your analogy is terribly flawed. We know 100 times more about human physiology than we do of the earth's atmosphere. Fact.

You take a personal decision and stretch it to decisions that will be made by politicians impacting millions.

If there was a movie that proclaimed that if you didn't take certain measures to cure your symptoms, which may or may not be a disease, your next door neighbor's dog will die, would you believe that claim? Better yet, would you care?

Good writer...no substance.

MJames

Hi Chris B,

I noticed the same thing in Phoenix. During June, when the air is dry, temperatures normally drop down to a relatively comfortable mid-70s at night. But in July and August after the monsoons start, it is not uncommon for temperatures to stay in the upper eighties and nineties all night long.

The best place to study this is probably the South Pole which has essentially no humidity. The lack of any warming trend is solid evidence of how minimal the effects of changing CO2 levels have been.

CC:

You forgot to mention the part that unless you can convince everybody in China to take the Gore's syndrome medicine too, it won't work.

Veets, you're welcome to alter the analogy in any way you desire to render it amenable to your own preferences. However, the analogy as I presented it is, I believe, a fair representation of the AGW debate and the choices that citizens face. All of the changes you offer would, in my opinion, make it less representative of the situation we face. Why don't we just let people make up their own minds? It doesn't prove anything and I don't suggest that it proves anything. It's just an analogy.

Chris C.

Ok, here is a TRUE (really) story that happened to me and may help undecided people figure out what to believe about global warming or not.

A number of years ago, I started having serious back pain. It kept getting worse so I started going to some of the most respected doctors in the field of back pain treatment, real doctors, MDs, the biggies. I waited months to see specialists. I spent the next 4 to 5 years going to doctor after doctor who recognized my symptoms, had the same diagnosis, and prescribed the same treatment: heat, physical therapy, exercise, stretching, pain pills, etc. The pain kept getting worse and worse and the treatments just didn�t seem to work. I and the insurance company spent a lot of money. These doctors were tops in their fields, they KNEW what was wrong, and would not accept my skepticism that maybe they didn�t.

So I started doing my own research to try and find out what was wrong. I got some ideas but mainly from my Mother who told me to go to one of the doctors and tell them I couldn�t take it anymore. A tad drastic and my Mother wasn�t even a doctor!!! So I took her advice, went to another doctor, told him I couldn�t take the pain any longer and some other drama on my part. Anyway, I had to go nonlinear and cause a big stinko in order to get him to listen to me.

Long story short, they discovered a spinal cord tumor, I had an emergency operation, and I had some side effects of permanent nerve damage. But I exist today because I became skeptical of hearing the same old story from all these highly respected doctors who apparently were not open to debate about my situation.

So how does my story relate to your analogy regarding global warming?

I would say NEITHER story has any relation at all to global warming.

Skeptical to the end..

Mrsund hasa good point about China.
Although I am a believer in AGW theory, I'm also pretty sure that we collectively aren't going to do jack about it. Hopefully, technology will have advanced enough by say 2100 so that we can easily modify the atmosphere to suit our needs.
Anyway, it wil be interesting to see what exactly does happen. The beautiful thing about this controversy is that we will probably see who is more correct within our lifetimes.

To Mary: about your comment: "I would say NEITHER story has any relation at all to global warming." Possibly true but, personally if it were up to me, I'D MAKE YOUR MOTHER THE HEAD OF THE IPCC!!! Posted this on "The Great Challenge Of 2008' thread but I think it's appropriate to repost: It's a goodie! http://www.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070320152338-19776.pdf

Another analogy ( probably poorer reading than Chris C's but I will take a stab):

Your doctor makes a tentative diagnosis of Gore's disease, which although at the current time is manifested only be a slight elevation in body temperature which, surprisingly, leaves you more comfortable during the winter months and results in lower heating bills. However, he warns, if untreated, it could lead in the future (likely 50 years hence) to occassional acne, some reduced mobility with the potential for severe restrictions in mobility, and a variety of symptoms ranging from mild to severe.

The hospital's best diagnostic models have been used to analyze your ailment and project its progression but, despite this, your body and the disease's interaction with it is very complex and there are large uncertainties related to what may actually happen, and, whether or not you actually have the disease or just have your bed to close to the radiator.

Concerned, you ask about his uncertainty regarding both when you might suffer such additional symptoms and their severity. Although initially denying any real uncertainty, he eventually (and in a very quiet and fast voice akin to the "side effects include" portion of most drug commercials) responds by noting that they have never actually seen the disease in question and so are uncertain of its progression, that you are the first and only diagnosed sufferer of the disease, the progression presented to you is entirely theoretical, and has an uncertain margin of error.

If you want to avoid the potential for the severe form of the disease, you have the option of undergoing immediate surgery to remove a portion of your digestive tract and your left foot and right hand, removing beef entirely from your diet, and embarking on a life-long $300 dollar ($200 of which will go to a pharmaceutical broker in China) a month drug treatment regime. The other alternative is to not treat it, take your chances that you do not actually have Gore's disease, and potentially incur all of the above symptoms 50 years hence.

Should you do so, the treatment will be the same as the above and there will be an additional and massive recuperative cost of $1 million associated with recovering your mobililty, treating your acne, and surpressing/eliminating the remaining mild to severe syptoms. However, there is also the possibility that a much cheaper, less painful, and more effective treatment will be developed in the future.

Uncertain, you look for information on the internet where you do indeed find many spokespersons who seem to have a fixed view of Gore's disease and are motivated by financial interest. On the one hand, the beef industry and their political allies are very concerned that this may impact their profits - although less so than you think as they also own major stakes in the chicken, pork, and fishing industries. Neverthless, they seem adamant that the disease does not exist and since they do have a clear financial interest you steer (pun intended) clear as it is impossible to trust their motives.

On the other hand (the one you would be missing should you undergo the immediate treatment) there are a large number of proponents for Gore's disease adamant that it exists but who seemingly take this position because they were involved in developing the diagnostic model and hate being wrong, or who front for the pharmaceutical broker. You sadly realize that they too cannot be trusted given their investment in the issue and/or financial interests.

Depressed and still uncertain, you luckily discover a discussion group made up of genuine sceptics, some who lean towards a belief that Gore's disease is genuine and a real threat to your health, and others who lean towards the view that it may not be genuine and, even if it is genuine, its effects given uncertainties in the diagnostic model, may be considerably milder than predicted. Unfortunately, the group can't really help with your decision as their discussion frequently degenerates into semantics, accusation and counter accusation, and a focus on disproving one another rather than a substantive debate. Despite your own worries, you feel awful for the poor moderator for the group who puts a great deal of work into hosting the discussion.

Still undecided, you ask your accountant over drinks one morning (you might be seriously ill in 50 years so its time to live life to its fullest) what his sense of it is.

The accountant, who always wanted to be an economist, pulls his calculator out of his shirt front pocket and does some quick calculations.

With a smile, he suggests that you hold off on the treatment, invest the $300/month you would have spent on the drug treatment, enjoy the use of your hand, leg, and full digestive tract for the next 50 years, and, assuming a modest 50 year return of 7% per annum, you would be left with approx. 1.46M - enough to cover the massive cost of recuperative treatment should you need it and still be left with $460,000.

Before you finish imagining how well-off you could be with the right sort of financial planning however, he does advise you to cut down on you beef consumption because, regardless of whether or not you have Gore's disease, too much red meat is bad for you.