It's me again....I meant to have said:
Missed out the space :)
PLEASE ANSWER...I REALL NEED HELP!!!
There are proponents of nuclear generated electricity that claim that the problem of greenhouse gases is lessened by using nuclear power generation. They never mention the tremendous amount of carbon added to the atmosphere during all other phases of their operation, Building the power station, mining the Uranium, transporting it, cooling the spent fuel rods, the time the plant is down during refueling (when coal or gas plants have to take up the slack), etc.
As to a shortfall in the model itself, the oceans hold a lot of heat, the methane from melting permafrost, the methane emitted from the rear ends of billions of cows and chickens, the increase in ice temperatures(while not melting, but still being warmer), the reduction in ice reflecting internal globe heat back down into the earth, the oceans are becoming more acid as they absorb an increasing load of CO2(does a higher acidity retain more heat?)...
These are just some ideas. I have not seen any data that says the model has a shortfall. The only places I have heard that is does are from groups that stand to gain financially from not addressing the problem of rising global temperatures, and people who have believed these unfounded claims.
I have heard climate scientists say that their computer models have been programed with inadequately low numbers because they did not want to be accused of being criticized for being alarmists. This has had the affect of making the computer models fall short of the measured rise in overall actual gain.