Amid daily concerns about overpopulation, species extinction and global warming, it may seem soothing to be once again reassured by Michael Ivey that CO2 pollution is no big deal [“Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Global Warming,” Dec. 25 Xpress]. Not that he supports his position with any shred of evidence, but that he so firmly believes in it is the point. Passionate conviction seems good enough for him, so it should be good enough for you.
My own physics training about radiation balance between the incoming solar, high frequency radiation and outgoing infrared emissions made it seem perfectly logical (to me) that excesses of atmospheric gases (CO2, methane, water vapor) which selectively absorb outgoing radiation frequencies would trap more heat, leading to a higher atmospheric temperature that resets the incoming/outgoing radiation balance. Not that this is the only mechanism which controls global temperatures, but it is certainly one of them. Perhaps this viewpoint is too dressed up in sciency-sounding statements to be accessible to the Michael Iveys, who are instantly suspicious of math, chemistry and logic as the province of liberal elites who are out to hornswoggle them. Why anyone such as myself, a retired physicist, would want to hornswoggle Mr. Ivey remains to be explained.
— Glen Reese, Ph.D
One thought on “A balanced viewpoint”
And this is a “balanced viewpoint”? How about the following: 1) Will the warming be a net plus or minus for Earth? 2) Has there been such a warming in the past and what were the results then? 3) Are the methods proposed to halt the warming actually going to do that? 4) Remove man’s additions to the climate change entirely and what is the result? Does the warming stop? 5) We are currently past the end of the last inter-glacial period. What does that mean for the future with and without man’s addition of carbon-dioxide?