From: Ad 

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:45b3f41f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>> What makes you think El-nino is not caused by increased CO2 levels? I
>>> mean the possibilities are unlimited.
>>>
>>
>> because there is long term proof of it's existence. However to a degree
>> it is as without any greenhouse gases the earth would be a frozen lump
>> of ice.
>
> And yet those who are considered experts on El Nino still have no idea
> what causes it.
>

What triggers it.

>> Possibly both. Less plants etc & more coal/oil/gas etc burning. Often
>> part of the same thing (e.g. burning forests).
>
> Then according to that assumption one possible cure would be to increase
> algae and plant life as a way to compensate, something that the
> greenhouse effect will do all by itself.
>

Esp wrt oceanic plants as when they sink they take the Carbon down with them.


>> I think is is safe to say that the climate will warm & that we should
>> start planning for it now. It may not be all bad e.g. if you're in
>> Canada or Russia.
>
> Global climate change is always bad somewhere and good somewhere else.
>
>>> days people would be dropping dead of co2 poisoning.
>>>
>>
>> Nope. That assumes no wind, no convection etc & that is not tenable from
>> a purely brownian motion pov.
>
> There are pollution alerts in LA, note they are pollution alerts and not
> CO2 alerts.
>

Yup & alerts & not specific pools of toxicity as you might find in
a mine (e.g. the Canary or Davy safe miner's lamp)


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5