David Chorley wrote:
Matthew Wild wrote in message ...

David Chorley wrote:


The only interest a politician will have in climate change will be how
to extract more money from the taxpayer and extend control over the
individual.
This, incidentally, is why "global warming through increased levels of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" was thought up as it is hogwash as
basic science and undisproveable, as it is unproveable.

David

Your evidence for this exactly?

Matthew


1. basic science: the ability of the CO2 molecule to absorb and
re-radiate energy is based on its dipole moment. CO2 is a linear
molecule with, at best a temporarily induced dipole moment, unlike
water, which with its unshared pair of electrons has a huge dipole
moment and is a very effective greenhouse gas. Witness the change in
temperature on a cloudy night, when the clouds clear and energy is not
re-radiated back to the ground. A change in the concentration of
carbon dioxide would have to be huge to perform this degree of effect.

Yes, water is a very effective greenhouse gas, whose levels are not
being changed significantly by human activity. However, levels of other
greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and various halocarbon compounds *are*
increasingly significantly - and their contribution to the warming
effect and subsequent inbalance in the CO2 cycle increases temperatures,
increasing the rate of melting of ice on the planet's surface, and thus
increasing concentrations of water in the atmosphere.

I'm not sure of the relevance of dipole moments in this discussion, as
infrared absorption is at the energy level of stretching and bending
vibrations in bonds. The dipole moment of water is more relevant to
microwaves.

The change in concentration of CO2 is around 35% over the last 200
years, which is pretty huge.

2. Paeleontology.
The records of prehistoric London show a savannah-like climate with
species much more like East Africa as recently as 10000 years ago, not
so long ago that continental drift would have much of an effect (
1000years/metre)

Is this meant to prove that climate change is independent of atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations?

3. The data set is too small: a sample of 200 years, notwithstanding
inferences made from ice cores, is just too small to make predictions.

What's wrong with inferences from ice cores? They allow a sample of some
420,000 years.

4 the hypothesis makes no accounting for changes in solar radiation
and sunspot activity.

Are you telling us that scientists involved in research into global
warming are naive enough not to take into account these kind of phenomena?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London