Global Warming or El Nino?

Its both. Global warming is just an overall warming of the entire Earth. Basically, the Sun heats the Earth which then radiates heat into space. Increased Greenhouse gases trap some of the heat. The more greenhouse gas, the more heat trapped. The more heat trapped, the warmer the Earth gets. This is how greenhouse emissions cause global warming (very roughly).

El Nino is a fluctuation of ocean surface temperatures in the South Pacific. Occasionally, the Pacific ocean off the west coast of South America, specifically Argentina, become warmer than average for an extended period of time (a year or more). This increase in water temperature effects weather patterns in the Americas. Those who live in the Northeast United States experience milder winters because the jet stream is deflected from its usual winter dip. With no dip, it is difficult for the cold arctic air to penetrate far into the US.

Global Warming effects and El Nino are complicated phenomenon and its hard to explain how one might effect the other. From the simplest standpoint, think of it this way. Every decade will be slightly warmer on average than the previous decade because of global warming. Every year the average temperature will vary due to fluctuations in El Nino. Also, there are many other things that effect the Local US weather that we are failing to consider; la nina, ocean currents, etc.

When talking about weather, its always best to talk about trends, the longer the better. Decade trends are a reliable indication of global warming. The fact we are happening to have a warm winter is not.

Hope that helps.

Argentina lies along the Atlantic Ocean.

You're absolutely right. I meant Peru. Clearly I could use some brushing up on my geography.

weather is a highly variable atmospheric, with no global warming or el nino we would have variable weather, and it would stay around a norm.

Add global warming and we get a gradual increase in temperature superimposed on this trend, so the average line will go up with tim.

El nino, http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/nino-home.html

There is also the " north pacific oscillation" , another trend that gets superimposed on the weather..

The el nino typically causes a wetter southwest USA and a warmer NE USA.

We are experiencing an El nino and so we are warm in the NE and the SW will be wetter and stormier. There are other effects, fisheries change as fish follow nutrients.

the north pacific oscillation affects the siberian cold fronts and makes them a little later in flowing to the SW plains.

Usually by mid January the arctic high over siberia will gather enough cold air to spill down into norther Canada/Alaska and bring cooler temperatures. So we may see a succession of arctic high soon?? Maybe not?? will the warmer melted arctic ice that now shows as open water act as a heat source and warm these arctic highs? perhaps that is what has also been happening.

In any event search those terms and you will get an understanding

Actually it is very complex, it's quantum physics you see. When we don't watch it there isn't any weather at all. If you watch Fox News network then the cause is El nino. If you watch CNN then the cause is global warming. So you see you can control the cause depending on how you look at it, which of course works best when you are in a river in Egypt.

El Nino and its counterpart La Nina effect the weather across the entire Pacific basin. Here is a link to a graphic of the effect and some information on what it's all about.

http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/Students_Teachers/elnanim/elani.shtml

Thanks for the feedback. But since it's such a debatable subjet as i can tell it's still up in the air. It cleared up most things i need to know!! Thanks alot and by the way I hope you all don't mind if i use this information in a research paper I'm currently doing. ((I absolutely hate research papers))

Thanks again,

no-one ever succeeds in life in anything they absolutly hate. In fact most science is driven by people who like what they do and want to discover new things, much like exploring...

True. It's just i cant stand the overwhelming amount of information i need for this paper. It's all interesting and i do want to get to writing this paper asap. But it has to be very specific, and in specific format! It's a bit of a pain.

Another CR4 full of hot air....

A-ha! The million dollar/rand/yen/euro/pound question! There was a similar thread not too long ago posted on this site, with a multitude of links to other sites all proving or disproving global warming due to emmisions and so and so on or as Yule Brunner would say etc etc etc etc (From the movie the King and I) It would appear that the basic theory of cause and effect are at play here insomuch as that for every theory put forward has an equal and opposite theory to counter act it??????.

So, Physgrl80(An interesting name to be sure) if you stick around a tad longer, one of the other folks will sure to be giving you all the possible links to give you reading material to last a lifetime, and at the end of it you will be just as lost as you were before you asked the QUESTION~!

Along with the inevitable barrage of comments with nothing of substance, only vapid criticism of the attempts of a few to struggle with a difficult and complex topic. Listen to them and you must draw the conclusion that there is no value in debate, no merit in trying to discuss an issue and possibly learn something. Far better to stand in the wings, some behind the anonymous "Guest" status and some not, and simply throw rocks. Yes, clearly to attempt to learn or understand something is overrated, just watch TV and parrot what you are told to believe. Oh and of course, make fun of those losers that actually try to do anything about anything. Nice job guys, why do you even bother with getting on here in the first place? Why don't you just go play an MMO or whatever they are called and quit wasting your bandwidth on such drivel as engineering or science? Meanwhile, we'll be the ones making sure you have enough bandwidth to play your games.

Thanks for taking the time to read my posting, pity you jumped on your high horse before you took the time to understand what I was trying to say. I have posted on a number of threads of a similar subject requesting sites and links to obtain more information. This I have received in abundance, thanks to many fine engineering folk out there. I will not be able to have the time to review all these sites which of course have additional links and threads. What, however, I have read leads me only to one conclusion, and that is to say that "people will only agree to disagree!"

Meanwhile, we'll be the ones making sure you have enough bandwidth to play your games.

With all due respect, but this comment really scares me. My first response on reading this was to say something on the lines of "who died and made you God?" But I'm not going to, so without any more preamble let me just add that I have insulted your sensibilities and for this I humbly and profusely apologise. I will not intentionally mock or insult anyone for whatever reason, least of all engineers. I merely try to bring a small amount of humour into a very serious issue or a number of issues.

One thing that remains true in all walks of life is the fact that no matter what one does or says, someone is going to take umbrage.

Physgrl80... the short answer is.... Both... or neither... depending on how you look at it or who you talk to.

First, I'm not sure a forum for engineers is the best place to get a serious answer to this, mainly because most of us aren't in a field involving global weather patterns.

That said, El Nino is a regular reoccuring weather phenomenon, notice well before any talk of global warming. Global warming or no, El Nino occurs every few years in the Pacific Ocean and causes "unseasonally" warm weather in NE USA. The unusual phenomenon of the Arctic ice shelf melting as much as it has, to the point that shipping lanes north of Canada could be opening (the Northwest Passage!), is more significant than the mild weather in New York state.

Global warming is the overall warming of the earth's average temperature. One thing that was warned of, and something people lose sight of, as global warming occurs, temperature extremes can get worst in some areas of the earth. It is entirely consistant with the idea of global warming to have much colder winters and hotter summers in areas that were once were historically centers of mild weather patterns.

How convenient. Now even Global Cooling can be caused by Global Warming. The only common thread is that we are causing it. Fear NOT. We can all be saved if only we buy Carbon Credits from Al Gore.

I don't know if any of you have ever heard of John Coleman. He used to be a TV Weatherman here in Chicago. I heard him on the radio yesterday talking about Global Warming and CO2. He basically said that Al Gore should be arrested and charged with fraud for selling Carbon Credits, when he clearly knows that Global Warming is a hoax. Here is a site that link's to John Coleman's original comments about the Global Warming Hoax. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Dick Hourigan
Visit
www.RichardHouriganInc.com

Hi EnduroSolv

There is now way to much evidence that the world's atmosphere is warming to deny it. While nobody can be 100% certain of the cause the overwhelming evidence points to our use of fossil fuels and the subsequent discharge of the combustion products into the atmosphere as the primary driving force.

Already over the entire continent of Australia mean temperatures have increased by 1°C over those of the beginning of the 20the century and there have been several consecutive years over the last decade that were the hottest on record. The ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland along with glaciers on every continent except Australia (there are no glaciers on the Australian continental land mass) are receding at an alarming rate and the warming of the oceans has triggered massive coral bleaching events that threaten the existence of the planet's largest living organism, the Great Barrier Reef.

Now before you rightly respond with the fact that the Earth has been both warmer and colder in the past it's not the change but rather rate of change that is alarming.

The ice sheet of Antarctica has been trapping small pockets of atmosphere and preserving them for millions of years. These tiny bubbles of trapped gas can be analyzed to give a fairly accurate history of the composition of the atmosphere when they were trapped. So far the composition of the atmosphere has been traced back some 800,000 years and there are some startling results.

The major finding is to do with carbon dioxide CO₂ levels. Over the past 50 years or so the levels of CO₂ has been increasing dramatically and at the moment is rising nearly 60 times faster than it has at any time over at least the last 800,000 years. This poses the question of why and what is causing such a phenomenal increase and the only answer can be that it has something to do with our activities.

Another point worth noting is that during that 800,000 years there was a ice age ending period and even then when the Earth's atmosphere was warming considerably the level of CO₂ and rate of increase were far less than the current.

Of course there are going to be detractors that go against the general scientific opinion and the general scientific opinion may be incorrect but if it is correct the consequences of ignoring it and doing nothing will be nothing short of cataclysmic. On the other had if we were to act responsibly now and the scientific opinion were incorrect then we would end up with a cleaner and more sustainable Earth.

To me and I would assume many others, the only logical action is to act and act quickly and diligently. Either way we end up better off than we would have been if we did not act.

P.S. You are welcome to act like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand but may I suggest purchasing SCUBA equipment first as the hole is likely to fill with water as the sea levels rise. As for myself, I'm off to find a nice place about 70 m AMSL to build a really comfortable waterfront house.

Actually that is NOT true.

Those who believe that man has caused Global Warming achieved a early tactical advantage in the argument by stating their case and then quickly declaring that the issue is settled and the discussion is now over. Evidence to the contrary is either not reported or is ridiculed. They try to equate those who disagree to Holocaust Deniers in an attempt to discredit them.

In just the last year we have we have reversed the 1 degree rise in temperature. Snow and Ice levels in the Northern Hemisphere are now back to 1966 levels as we in the north are experiencing one of the coldest winters on record.

The hottest year on record is NOW 1934. 1998 was knock off as being the hottest on record by NASA when data errors were discovered in those records.

Regarding Carbon Dioxide, It is caused BY Global Warming, and not the cause OF Global Warming. Thus it is a trailing indicator.

From the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (just last week):

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

Global Warming is not science it is politics. Its purpose is to achieve what the socialist and the communist were unable to achieve during the Cold War, which is global domination. They want to tax the rich countries to give money to the poor countries for increased social programs. Socialism is dying due to lack of money and they need to go somewhere else for funds such as the US, and Australia. Global Warming Hysterics hope to stop or slow Capitalism because Socialism is unable to compete. Global Warming is just their latest vehicle to make that happen.

Some references:

http://List_of_scientists_opposing_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Manhatton Declaration on Climate Change

19,000 Scientists Rejecting Man Made Global Warming

Hmmm, As a Chemist, I could sign that, too, and make this 19,001.

P.S. And you are welcome to act like Chicken Little and declare that "the sky is falling".

Dick Hourigan

www.RichardHouriganInc.com

Ok, this all sounds like a verbatim quote from another CR4 participant that believes the whole global warming problem is a hoax.

For the moment lets ignore the effects and just look at the level of atmospheric CO₂ for a moment. The current level of CO₂ in the atmosphere is higher than it has been in the last 800 millennia. Not only is it higher but the level is rising almost 60 times faster than it has at any time over the same period.

Consider for the moment that the given period covers some 73,000 solar cycles, an ice age, numerous large and highly energetic volcanic events, a couple of impacts of some relatively large extraterrestrial objects and a plethora of other naturally triggered or driven events When this is combined with the precedence setting rate of and increase in atmospheric CO2 can only point to the human race being the driving force behind the change.

Even if we go to the extreme and say that the change is the consequence of an extremely rare or one off naturally triggered or driven event during recent decades the apparent absence of a sufficiently energetic, dynamic and diverse would indicate that this was not the case.

Without going into the details or specific processes the preclusion of natural events clearly points to the activity of humans being the either the triggering or driving force behind the increase of atmospheric CO₂.

Regardless of what will be the result of such a change the fact that our activities has pushed the dynamics of the atmosphere some 60 times greater than is natural has to set off alarms.

Now that's just a single parameter and doesn't look at why, what just that we have pushed, prodded, ripped, torn and stretched the biosphere far harder than nature has over the entire period that the human race has existed.

Continuing on the theme of observation rather than cause lets have a look as some cold hard data as gathered by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

The following grapht shows the mean maximum temperatures on an 11 year average for the last century.

The next graph shows the mean temperature over the same period and 11 average

This graph shows the minimum temperature over the same period and 11 year average.

The final graph shows the annual sea surface temperature.

Next we have a couple of maps that show the variation in maximum temperatures over the last century

Finally we have the variation in the sea surface temperature.

Regardless of the driving force or detailed causality the data clearly shows that on a continental scale Australia and a large portion of the surrounding 40 km2 or about 8% of the total surface area of the Earth is warming.

There is no if, but or maybe about it the cold hard data shows a definite warming trend that when compared to the geological time frame of past dramatic climatic swings is close to being instantaneous.

Yes it is true that the Earth's climate and meteorological patterns are dynamic and have and will always be in a state of flux but it is not the change that is the problem but the rate of the change that is worrying. To ignore the evidence and state that it is just a myth means that by far the majority of climatic and meteorological and related scientific preciseness are wrong or even worse involved in a global conspiracy is more unbelievable that global warming.

We could just ignore all this and carry on in our polluting, wasteful and greedy ways only concerning ourselves with short term rewards and gratification but that's not what being a responsible member of the global human society. We need to work together in analyzing the data and developing better ways to live in way for everybody to live and that doesn't have such a devastating effect on the biosphere we are all completely dependant on.

We need to start thinking on a global scale rather than the small artificial sociopolitical boundaries that we have imposed upon each other. We are all humans, we all live on the same planet, breath the same air, drink the same water, sail the same seas, fly in the same air and consume foods that come from the same ecology so lets start working together so that all can improve their standard of living while reducing the impact we have.

In a little over a decade and through the cooperative work of several thousand engineers, scientists and technical experts that came from numerous diverse societies and cultures we put a man on the Moon. In comparison developing a renewable, clean, environmentally responsible and affordable energy should be a walk in the park. Lets stop the finger pointing, blaming somebody else, ignoring what is staring us in the face and get on with the job.

The question not can we afford to act but rather can we afford to not act!

Okay, You guys in Australia can stop using energy. I don't think we import much from you any way. That will leave more energy for us in the USA, those guys in China who are building coal burning plants and those guys in India who are developing their economies. Perhaps if you qut using, I can buy gasoline for a couple of pennys less per gallon.

OK. I have a graph, too. Mine shows NO correlation between Atmospheric temperature and CO2 in the last 600 Million Years.

Hi EnduroSolv,

• I have a graph, too. Mine shows NO correlation between Atmospheric temperature and CO2 in the last 600 Million Years.

And that may well be the case. What the chart you supplied doesn't look at the atmosphere in total and variations in other atmospheric components that may also be dynamic.

Now before people get up in arms this is just a hypothetical example that would produce a similar result while not negating the link between CO₂ and global warming.

Lets look at methane CH4 and the effect it has. CH4 over relatively short periods prior to I breaking down absorbs about 25 times as much Infrared Radiation as CO₂. One of the sources for CH4 is a process that is analogous to the formation of liquid and solid fossil fuels and is often found by itself and in association with other fossil fuels.

In the chart you supplied the average rate at which atmospheric CO₂ is changing is around -13 Myr^-1 (parts per million per million years). For the sake of this example lets now say that the level of atmospheric CH₄ has been increasing by around 530 ppb Myr^-1 (parts per billion per million years) over the same period.

In the example for every 25 molecules of CO₂ in the atmosphere is replaced with 1 molecule of CH4 and the CH4 absorbs about 25 times as much IR as CO₂ the overall effect on the amount of IR being absorbed would be static. Both CO₂ and CH4 are gasses that absorb IR and therefore can have a warming effect on the atmosphere but by looking at the CO₂ alone there seems to be no correlation.

Over the last 17 years the level of atmospheric CO₂ has increased by some 30 ppm which comes to something like 1,750,000 ppm Myr-1 or around 136,000 times the average over the period of the chart.

Going back to the ice cores for a moment over the 800,000 years the cores represent the greatest rate CO2 levels changed by prior to the latest was around 30 ppm jyr-1 which makes the current rate around 58.823 faster than any previously know change.

• Okay, You guys in Australia can stop using energy. I don't think we import much from you any way.

It's not the consumption of energy that's the problem it's the way we are supplying the energy and the waste products we are belching into the atmosphere and biosphere in general that are the problem.

We have been dumping all sorts of waste products into the atmosphere and biosphere in general for too long and we can no longer just ignore it and hope nature cleans up the mess we are creating. We have been pushing the variables that are involved in the regulation and stabilization of global climatic systems far harder that has happened naturally and sooner or later something has to give.

The rise in the temperatures across and around Australia clearly show that there is a warming trend and while this trend may not yet be as obvious in other regions there is a pretty good chance that in the not to distant future it will.

I am not talking about going back to the stone age and living in a subsistence way but rather acting more responsibly. There are technologies that can dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and by utilizing more intelligent energy management systems we can reduce our demand for energy without lowering our standard of living. We just need to all start pulling in the same direction and cooperating rather than infighting and shifting the blame.

Alright....there's alot of unneeded feedback. But I'm not going to even bother in getting into a debate or an argument, or a debate that will just end up in an argument. I don't have the time. I suppose this isn't the best place to get an answer for that sort of question, but then again how come i have so much information for a 5 page research project? I got some kind of an answer and enough information to form my own opinions and ideas collectively into a grade A paper.

Thanks again for the information!!

Keep an open mind, trust your own judgment and all the best for your paper!

Good luck (break a leg) or whatever and let us know the result.

Looking beyond U.S., what are the effects? Isn't Australia having some serious problems from El Nino/Global Warming?

"Looking beyond U.S., what are the effects? Isn't Australia having some serious problems from El Nino/Global Warming?"

You better believe it. Australia has warmed by 1°C in the last 50 years and we are now in the midst of the worst drought ever seen. The current thinking is that this is the worst drought in 1,000 years. If the pattern doesn't change dramatically Sydney will exhaust its water supply in 18 months and Melbourne 6 months after that. The Darling river (for comparison it's roughly the same length as the Mississippi river) has dried up. Think of the Mississippi looking like the photograph and you will get the picture.

Global warming makes tropical climates wetter and sub tropical and temperate climates drier. Half of Australia is tropical and since all of continental USA is either sub tropical is temperate, well you get the picture. This global warming thing isn't the fun thing some optimistic people think it might be.

Time to drag some antartic ice shelves into the bight, surround them with a membrane and use the meltwater

This isn't as off the planet as it would first seem and is getting serious consideration. When you take into account that the increased temperature in Antarctica has resulted in the breakup of parts of the ice shelf and the fact that ice bergs were seen off New Zealand's south coast a few weeks back, then it doesn't seem that fanciful.

Yes, I is a lot easier for Australia than for China, what with the longer trip through tropical waters and all.

There were studies about covering the top with a layer of foam and adding a membrane to the bottom for transit to reduce losses. They never did it.

They routinely use large water bladders in various places to move fresh water,

But with a severe drought in Australia I bet they will try this soon.

Hi Aurizon,

"Yes, I is a lot easier for Australia than for China, what with the longer trip through tropical waters and all."

Actually this is a misconception that may people have and it's caused by the way maps are created. Australia is actually further from the Antarctica Circle than China or Continental USA are from the Artic Circle. Have a look at a map and note where the Equator, tropic of Cancer and tropic of Capricorn are.

If you look at the southern hemisphere you will see that the tropic of Capricorn runs slap bang through the middle of Australia. Now if you look at the northern hemisphere the tropic of Cancer just touches the southern most parts of China and misses continental USA all together. As a result it would be a shorter trip to drag an iceberg from the Arctic regions to China or the USA than it would be to drag one from Antarctica to Australia.

The type of projection also exaggerates the size of places proportionally the their distance from the equator. As a result Greenland and Europe look large when compared to places like Australia when in fact they are considerably smaller. The other hassle is that many maps leave of a big chunk of the southern hemisphere so the equator is not in the middle.

I am aware of this. I feel antarctica to Australia is a preferred route as the large ice shelfs in antarctica are shedding large flats on a weekly basis that are better suited than the irregular bergs from the Arctic from Greenland and Canada. Frozen surface ice would be too thin.

The antarctic ones can be 500 feet thick or more with (450 feet underwater) and would be better suited for transport with a fairly flat top and bottom, althiugh they would need a deep place I think they could be enveloped in a rubber skin and the first melt used to flush out the salt via initial suction to draw the rubber close, after which the top insulation can be removed and the sun allowed to melt it gradually to be piped to the application zones. I think this is a viable concept. I think a rubber coat would also help in transport by reducing melt losses in transit.

Dont get mixup as all reporters of news, they are the childs, since there is not EL NIÑO effect nor the green house effect either, but the global warming is true and we all can help if we focus on the real facts, as follows:

WORLDISGREEN.COM...BUSSINESS STRATEGY & SUSTAINABILITY, SEPT 3, 2007

GREEN HOUSE EFFECT IS FALSE

IT IS A TRICKY SENTENCE THAT PETROLEUM GUYS WANT US TO BELIVE IN, TO CONFUSE EVERY BODY

- IT IS A CRAISY IDEA to send satelite MIRRORS to BLIND AND REDUCE incoming solar energy to avoid climate change -due to a mitic green house effect-.... Sun has never been harmfull to Earth....... Sun Radiation is in a perfect Thermal Equilibrium with Earth ever since. is`nt it so?............ we Humans are the danger to earth..

REAL CAUSES:

Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 6 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -in motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, showing that the problem results from the extra added heat to atmosphere:

IR sun energy + extra waisted heat from burning fuels = atmosphere overheating

= more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

- Do you know what happen now that petroleum XX century is gone and Solar XXI century will replace fuels-WITH FREE AND CLEAN NATURAL ENERGY?- ......very simple.....the depleted AND EXPENSIVE petroleum will go down to 1 dollar per barrel and that will crack petroleum industry....... See? ...ENERGY will be free then, and peaple will save money to buy many thing else -as a free-maintance electric car ----and so on----- politically impossible?....IT SEEMS LIKE FICTION MOVIE….....but there are...

TWO SOLUTIONS:

1. Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

2. As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:

Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-

Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-

The true is that are cooking our self's in this global pot, due to PETRO-effect -nothing else-.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? :

- I urge any body who has responsability of enviromental care and have funds -you must support any projects where products (vehicles or equipments) pursue this change over -to a new solar and electric eco-culture-.

-I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

• Now, I hope you understand it better -the real global warming problem- & communicate it to all your friends -what is going on- to become more that GREEN peaple -but ECOLOGY ORIENTE PEAPLE, co-responsible- don't relay on heaven help, only. PLEASE STOP BURNIG FUELS guys.

jmjr, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass,

Zapopan, jal. Mexico

I have responded to this post in the Improved External Combustion Engines thread, so rather than repeating myself please follow the links I have provided to read my response or view the entire thread.

Dont get cofused:

El niño is some kid`s crasy hipothesis that explain nothig to get confuse any body.

There is a cyclic nature`s fenomena that happens every year in the oceans, an it is particularly more sencitive within the Tropics.

See, After winter time, during spring when deicing begins, cool melt water flows down farther than tropics so ocean water gets cooler -during mars-april-may time- however, sun energy reheats it up again for mounths, until dicember when you can feel surface warmer than in may. This is a perpetual climatic fenomena -yearly cycle- non niño is involved with its pe-pe.

At least, it is my experience down here in Puerto Vallarta -continuosly for 62 years- and has nothing to do with global warming.

Global warming is caused by the stratospheric amounts of artificial waste heat produced by humans while burning fluels -from petroleum and biofluels even- which hot gases are exausted to atmosphere from: 600millions vehicles, all airplais, 1billion water heaters, 1billion ranges, millions of ovens and grils, thousends utility thermoelectric and petroleum plants, etc, etc.

We humans are damaging planet with our wastes (temperature and climates polluted with wasted hot gases, lands polluted with garbage, and rivers polluted with drainage, as well as lakes and oceans, and most autorities are blind and take no corrective actions and changes to our way of living.

We must reforest any deforested land, since We exhall CO2 to feed trees and vegetables kingdome -they convert CO2 to O2 for us again-. This Nature Green house effect exist ever since, and Sun energy has been in perfect thermal equilibrium with earth too. So, please dont blame sun -for damages caused we humans-.

We must turn 360º as soon as posible, technology is ready to use free and clean solar energy -from electropanels and thermalpanels on top of your roofs-. Use non fuels energized products any more. Utility companies dont like this ecologic solution beause they will sale no electricity then.

jmj -MS chem eng from UMass-

Hi CHEMA,

• Global warming is caused by the stratospheric amounts of artificial waste heat produced by humans while burning fluels -from petroleum and biofluels even- which hot gases are exausted to atmosphere from: 600millions vehicles, all airplais, 1billion water heaters, 1billion ranges, millions of ovens and grils, thousends utility thermoelectric and petroleum plants, etc, etc.

That's not what is causing global warming. If you take the total global energy consumption (and that includes the wasted energy) there is no where enough energy being discharged into the atmosphere to cause anything even close to the warming we are currently experiencing.

First off we need to look at how sunlight heats the atmosphere. The lower section called the troposphere is almost completely transparent to the incoming radiation from the sun so it has very little effect on the atmosphere as it passes through. However, when it strikes the ground which absorbs 100% of the radiation it heats the thin upper surface of the ground. This then reradiates Infrared Radiation IR back up through the atmosphere and out into space. Now a certain proportion of this IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and goes toward heating it from the bottom up.

The problem of global warming stems from the products of combustion i.e. carbon dioxide CO₂, sulfur dioxide SO₂, nitrogen oxides NO_X, water vapor H₂O and, methane CH₄ from cattle etcetera that our activities are producing and belching into the atmosphere with great abandon.

These gasses absorb more infrared radiation IR than the oxygen O₂ and Nitrogen N₂ they displace and therefore cause a greater amount of the reflected IR coming from the surface being retained within the atmosphere. It is this additional retained IR that is the problem and causing the warming we are currently seeing not the actual energy we consume and release into the atmosphere.

Having said that everything else you have stated is correct and the problem stems from the wasteful ignorance of the human race and just discarding anything that isn't immediately useful into the biosphere and hoping nature will tolerate our ignorance and fix the problems we are creating.

"the problem stems from the wasteful ignorance of the human race and just discarding anything that isn't immediately useful into the biosphere and hoping nature will tolerate our ignorance and fix the problems we are creating."

And back in 1975 these very same problems were causing us to move toward an ice age. The "Consensus Scientist" were upset that governments were not stockpiling food and taking steps to increase global temperatures such as spreading cinders on the polar ice caps.

But if we give up our sovereignty, allow ourselves to be taxed into oblivion, and buy Carbon Credits from Al Gore; then this whole problem will go away.

You see, nobody has a model that accurately describes what is going on. We can't even tell you with any degree of accuracy what will happen in the weather in 5 days. But one side wants to use this as a power and money grab to control your life and the lives of millions of others. That is just human nature. Look at our history over just the last 100 years or so.

The models used today don't include negative feed back, don't properly address water vapor, and don't adequately address the effects of solar radiation. We don't yet understand enough to address these issues properly in the models.

I have a couple of things that while not on the original topic of el-Nino global warming comparison are none the less relative to this discussion.

Currently it is autumn in the southern hemisphere (fall for US based participants) and the temperatures should be starting to drop. However, yesterday (Wednesday 12^th March, Australian time) Adelaide, the capital of the state of South Australia with a population of slightly over one million, saw its ninth consecutive day with temperatures in excess of 35°C (95°F) with several breaking the 40°C (104°F) mark and making this the longest heat wave on record. The overnight temperatures have also stayed above 25°C (77°F) and on several occasions did not drop below 30°C (86°F).

Quoting from post #36 by a guest:

• And back in 1975 these very same problems were causing us to move toward an ice age. The "Consensus Scientist" were upset that governments were not stockpiling food and taking steps to increase global temperatures such as spreading cinders on the polar ice caps.

That may well mean that the situation is far worse that we currently believe and I would like to pose the following question.

Have you though about the possibility that in 1975 the trend towards a prolonged global wide period of dramatically reduced temperatures, as reported by many scientists and climatologists, was correct?

If that were the case and it well could be, then not only have we managed to create a manmade warming trend but reversed a natural cooling trend as well.

It's time for a reality check, look at what is happening around you. Nearly every continent is reporting record breaking hot spells or warmest winters on record. The level of green house gasses are not only the highest they have been for hundreds of millennia but are increasing at a rate tens of times greater than nature ever managed.

Clearly the applecart has been upset and I am afraid the evidence points to us and our wasteful gluttonous demand for cheap energy being the culprit. We have also not been paying the full price for the energy we are using in great abandon as it doesn't include things like the cost of repairing the damage to the environment, collection and disposal of wastes, safe virtually eternal storage of toxic and radioactive byproducts, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

We have been living of the energy credit card for way to long and guess what? The bill is in the mail and we are not only going to be hit with the real cost of our environmental vandalism but the interest as well..

You are right, there is -NO NIÑO- no thing to do here:

Peaple is all mix up with so many wrong news -given by non professional newsman and even from scientist- since even we have diferent point of view (on causes of Global Warming). But, what ever hypotesis you believe in:

1º the emision of co2 and other gases has green house effect that increase temp. This is a fancy gess but not a proben fact.

or

2º the huge wasted energy exhusted as heat -companion of CO2- from any combustion engine (device o equipment) in a rate of 85 million barrelas a day, and acummulated since a century, causes global warming. This is a fact, as real as we can feel it from the hot gases that exhaust our cars.

And -no matter what hipotesis you believe in- the fact is that, both, point that burnt fuel is the Evil that produces both -CO2 a the heat- in huge amounts that unbalanced atmosphere thermodynamic equilibrium, ence, the accion to be urgently taken is to reach CERO CO2 emitions, wich is the same as CERO fosil fuel combustion too.

So, from Copenhagen meeting, leaders should come out with the task to promote use of clean, enless, and free nature`s energy as solar, wind, tide and hidro, to stop global warming and its efffect on climate changes.

The "cause" of man made global warming is greed and fraud. The purpose of man made global warming is to tax you, to limit your freedom, and to support socialism. Al Gore should be arrested and convicted of fraud and sent to jail. The whole thing is a hoax.

Dick Hourigan

www.TheWaterTreatmentStore.com

I must admit that going back a decade or so I was sceptical that global warming was in fact real.

However, there is now way too much evidence to show that the Earth is warming and that the major driving force behind this is us.

If you believe that global warming is a hoax then I suggest you read through the many links in this and other related CR4 threads and then reassess your conclusion.

There are better and more energy efficient ways to go about our daily life. With a little thought and imaginative engineering we can and could easily dramatically reduce our overall energy consumption while not only preserving but improving our way of life and freedom.

If you think global warming is impacting on your freedom, have a thought for those that live on low lying land and islands that through no fault of their own could easily be swamped by a rise in sea level.

Or doesn't their freedom count?

How about I threaten you with all the horrible things that will happen as we approach the next ice age. World Starvation, people freezing to death. Then I tell you that you need to pay more taxes to me and I can make this all go away. Are you buying it yet?

"Scare 'em and Save 'em" is a well known sales technique. First, you create the problem in the customer's mind. Then you provide him with the solution which just happens to be the product you are selling. I thought that was disreputable and manipulative when I first encountered it in the 1970s. I still think so.

The Man Made Global Warming (I prefer to call it Man Fabricated Global Warming). can not be scientifically proven. It is the equivalent of asking science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Like God, Man Made Global Warming is based on faith, not science.

I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that taxes paid to the UN (or now to the World Bank) can make this all go away. I would be far less sceptical, if I did not know that Al Gore has positioned himself to make huge profits from the trading of carbon credits on world markets. I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that socialist countries who can not compete with capitalism would be the primary beneficiaries of the tax dollars that will be collected from the US citizens who still have a job. I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that the hockey curve was faked. I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that the IPCC scientist and others were faking and slanting data to support the theory of Man Made Global Warming. I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that many rural ground based weather stations are no longer reporting while the more urban ones are, thus skewing the ground data toward global warming. I would be far less sceptical of it, if I did not know that the satellite weather data shows NO global warming. I would be far less skeptical of it, if I did not know that their are 10s of thousands of scientists (other than myself) who say this is a crock (John Coleman one of the founders of The Weather Channel is among those who don't believe this).

Anyway, since this is faith, not science, believe what you wish.

Dick Hourigan

www.TheWaterTreatmentStore.com

G'day EnduroSolf,

I will admit that there are people out there that are trying to make money out of global warming and carbon trading schemes are not the solution as all they do is allow the damage to continue if you pay for somebody else to take the blame for it.

Anyway, since this is faith, not science, believe what you wish.

While it's impossible to state anything with 100% certainty you can through scientific analysis state something with pretty much close to certainty.

Which means that statements like:

90% Sure Global Warming is Man-made

can be made and backed up with scientific evidence and the only faith is that in the concept of the scientific process of data collection, analysis, theory development and testing.

I would ask you to go and read through the numerous threads on CR4 about global warming and climate change. If you do and comprehend the scientific evidence yet still believe that it's all a hoax then all I can say is that you are looking at it with blinkered eyes.

Regards, masu