umbluegray Wrote:Point is, I assume if you remove from your model the two major cooling factors on the planet, it probably does look like global warming is happening.
I'm not familiar with the argument you are relaying, but with all due respect, I think you've mangled it pretty badly. You have to differentiate between "closed systems" and "open systems".
Briefly, a closed system is something that does not interact with anything outside that system. An open system is free to lose material or energy without restriction.
An automobile engine is a classic open system. The radiator and wind provide a way to transfer energy (heat) from inside the system (the engine) to the environment outside.
The earth receives energy from the Sun via radiation, and in turn radiates energy to offset it. This is done partly by reflecting it off the atmosphere, partly by radiating heat from the surface of the earth back up through the atmosphere.
The theory behind the Greenhouse effect is that by putting lots and lots of carbon into the atmosphere, you are preventing the radiation of heat from the surface of the earth back up through the atmosphere.
The analogy between an engine and the earth is that an engine releases energy through convection (air passing by the radiator to the outside world or water released back into streams and rivers). The exchange from the earth is generally radiative - the earth plays heat lamp to the sun's furnace.
Beyond basic analogy, I don't understand where water-wind would change how the earth releases energy back into the universe at large.
The best coverage of the topic of global warming that I have come across is from <a href='http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/' target='_blank'>PBS Frontline</a>, which does a good job of considering most of the contemporary polemics as well as having a reasoned approach to the science.
In my estimation, it is inevitable that this will be an existential problem to humanity, and the only hope of avoiding economic as well as environmental disaster lies with Nuclear Energy. Politically, IMHO, we need to abandon Kyoto and
seriously fund nuclear research. If Kyoto would cost the US economy $20 Billion (very conservative estimate - I think it would likely be many times that), then put $10-15 Billion into researching fusion reactors as well as relaxing prohibitive regulatory obstacles to fission reactors. Fund ways to recover carbon from the atmosphere.