"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib.../warming5.html

"The above chart shows the current scientific understanding
of radiative forcing (how different phenomena affect the Earth's
energy balance). Postive numbers represent forcing that will
warm the Earth, negative numbers are cooling effects"



notice that most of the factors are rigorous (the uncertainty measured by
the height of each bar is small, and the mean prediction represented by the
dark line is roughly centered in each bar), and cumulatively they tend
towards stasis (the positive forcings roughly offset the negative forcings,
the definition of a stable system).

Then there's greenhouse gasses. Fairly rigorous, and it's way up in the
positive-forcing area. IOW, all other things being equal (or cancelling each
other out), greenhouse gas emissions force temperatures upwards to a close
approximation.

The wildcards in this graph are mineral dust and tropospheric aerosols (dust
and soot kicked up into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and the like).
They have a very wide band, thus a high degree of uncertainty in the
predictive model. And neither has a central estimate, IOW nobody really has
a firm idea how much of an impact those two factors actually have on
climate.

Sounds like a model that supports global warming from CO2 and methane
emissions to me...


--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com