From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Geo. wrote:
> "Adam" <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the
field.near the bridge"> wrote
> in message news:45b3ebb1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> However (b) What an El- nino it's turning out to be 
& (b) wait for
>> the el nino to end & then wait for the year after that.
>
> 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.


>> Shrug. we know greenhouse gases trap heat. We know that heat causes
>> water to turn to gas. We know that water when it is lifted up high is a
>> heavy lump of mass wot contains a lot of energy in terms of both heat &
>> gravitational potential energy.
>
> The question is, are increased CO2 levels due to production of way more
> CO2 or is it because of a massive reduction in the things that take CO2
> out of the system?
>

Possibly both. Less plants etc & more coal/oil/gas etc burning. Often
part of the same thing (e.g. burning forests).


>> Personally I am the opposite of most (as usual) in that I flatly refuse
>> to believe in climate stability. It is a chaotic system with many
>> varying variables that stability is not tenable.
>
> Same as my view, except I am willing to acknowledge there is a
> possibility that we could be affecting the system, however unlikely I do
> think it's a good idea to find out. I just think it's a bad idea to
> assume and try to fix before we know.
>

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.


>>> To put it another way, if rising co2 levels are caused by people burning
>>> fossil fuels, and if algae, forests and other heavy plant life areas
>>> work against this, and if co2 is heavier than air, why isn't everyone in
>>> the LA basin dead from co2 poisoning?
>>>
>>
>> Wind. Convection. Pressure differentials.
>
> Not a chance. If Man is the cause of increased CO2 levels then
> population centers would have to be such high producers that during calm
> 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.


Adam
> Geo.

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