工作是否有更好的,更糟糕的是相同或科学首先需要什么东西变化的理论还有什么其他的事,其次计算的公式。否则你只是猜测。猜测是不科学。现在关于二氧化碳在大气中我们有一个理论,更多的二氧化碳会使地球更热。我们不这样做,然而,有一个准确的公式,因为理论状态,以及额外的增加下降从额外的二氧化碳分子红外光谱(微量气体变得更加可观但仍然跟踪)有一个“辐射强迫”即是thoereticised反馈效应。现在你可以,某些类型的造型(如大气分割成层的不同密度和组成)和某些类型的计算机(大的)做一些数据处理预期的增加在地球表面辐射通量。非常小的数字。通常几W / m ^ 2。当然不到上周二之间的变化,下周一(我没有烧烤了,但我的日历说它将在2个月暖和得多)。这是我们可靠的有二氧化碳。 Still trying to get an accurate handle on a formulae for radiative forcing, in fact there is still some debate as to whether the sign of the feedback is positive or negative. So answering the question for CO2 is tricky. We think we know what is happening but its not yet at the stage we can calculate it accurately. This is why IPCC reports on predicted global warming have ranges with degrees of certainty. Maybe doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase average global temperature by 0.7 degrees in 100 years, maybe it will be 7 degrees. Not really sure yet, still working on it. So if it has taken this long, with this much money, to get as far as this fuzzyness with CO2 I doubt we can answer your question in your lifetime for methane. If you have a couple of trillion dollars I could make a start on it if you like.