Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 03:46 PM Mar 2014

I don't harbor a grudge for someone who isn't convinced by the evidence

that compels my belief in established atmospheric science and the carbon dioxide theory of the climate. The notion that a clear, colorless gas present in seemingly small atmospheric concentrations can have a significant influence on the planet's radiative balance is not necessarily an easy concept to grasp for some people. Carbon dioxide selectively emits and absorbs radiation at different frequencies. It's transparent to incoming solar radiation, which is mostly in ultraviolet and visible frequencies. Because of the way that bodies in space radiate heat, the earth re-radiates energy in infrared frequencies. Carbon dioxide traps heat and prevents it from escaping back into space because it absorbs radiation in infrared frequencies.

The physics are indisputable and have been known in their basic form since the early part of the 20th century. Unless there is an unexpected and sustained dimming of the Sun, or unless a new and previously unknown negative forcing or negative feedback mechanism is discovered, the earth will warm as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.

Climatology is an extremely complex science that incorporates atmospheric science, geophysics, oceanography, etc. I believe it's conclusions are sound -- even indisputable -- but it's complexity leaves it susceptible to spurious challenges and doubt.

My interest has always been on the science rather than the public debate. The buildup of heat is occurring and will continue to occur regardless of our political squabbles.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

longship

(40,416 posts)
1. Well, the opposition is small, but very well funded and they are loud.
Sat Mar 29, 2014, 04:02 PM
Mar 2014

That's the issue. So I fear the politics are the overwhelming influence on action.

Sad, but true.

R&K

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
2. Have they done any studies on negative forcing due to desertification?
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:24 AM
Mar 2014

Just curious, you'd think the loss of ground cover and replacement by light colored sand would assist with negative forcing. Though I doubt it would be enough to counteract the positive forcing from permafrost methane emissions.

cheapdate

(3,811 posts)
3. I can't cite specific instances where desertification was considered
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:49 AM
Mar 2014

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 01:04 PM - Edit history (1)

but generally speaking it would be astonishing to me given the intense scientific interest in climate studies from governments and science research institutions around the world that any significant changes in ground cover have been overlooked. I would guess that the difference in reflectance between bare and grass or scrub covered ground would be significantly less than the difference between bare ground and ground covered with snow or ice. Of greatest significance is the difference between ocean ice and open water, where the substantial difference in reflectance is compounded by the fact that water stores heat far better than ground.

Sirveri

(4,517 posts)
4. I already realized the issue with water versus ice
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 02:18 AM
Mar 2014

Also Vice clued me into the dark soot from air pollution dropping onto the ice packs accelerating melting there which I hadn't even thought of. It's just such a large subject in scope, I think they just found the impact from altered cloud cover recently if I remember correctly. Oh well... We probably won't start doing anything until at least 2020, at which point we're near guaranteed to hit 2.5C above 1790 baseline. Time to play more fate of the world...

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
5. Losing the vegetation represents a loss of a carbon sink.
Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:17 AM
Mar 2014

It is unlikely that the loss of a well developed ecosystem would be of net benefit in slowing warming.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»I don't harbor a grudge f...