Jan 29 2012

El Niño/El Niña Unlikely Caused By Atmospheric Or Solar Forces

Published by at 1:52 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

Basic assumptions are the bane of science and scientific progress. So many times a basic, innocent conclusion is cast into concrete with minimal to no supporting evidence. The greatest scientific minds are the ones who recognized when a basic assumption is wrong and needs to be changed in order to realign science with the sum of all known facts at the time. This is how Newton, Kepler, Einstein and many others made their breakthroughs. Sadly, the inertia within the crony scientific community usually lashes out at new thinking. Which is why too many times scientific progress has to blaze through using upheaval and animosity (and sometimes oppression). Comfort with the status quo is hard to fight.

Scientists who make discoveries reassess every aspect of the assumed known science and determine where it was falling down. When you realize an aspect of a scientific theory is in violation of known facts (usually from other fields of science not so well known in the field in question), you can begin to explore where the truth could or does lie. And you discover new truths from the perch of an open mind.

From day one I have looked at the El Niño effect and decided it is impossible for this much heat to build up from solar or atmospheric heating alone. As is usual with the very, very young science of global climate, you should always consider the fact that we have long assumed the wrong cause and effect relationship (e.g., CO2 as a driver, versus results of, warmer temps). It is just as likely (and as I go through this post, becomes more likely) that El Niño is the result of something else, and the atmospheric responses in terms of weather and climate are just that –  the response and not the cause. What I walk through below is a myriad of processes that preclude the theory that El Niño/El Niña are driven by atmospheric/solar heating. Which leaves really only one source for the phenomena left, which I introduce through deduction.

Wikipedia has a reasonable description of the conventional wisdom surrounding El Niño:

El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, is a quasiperiodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean roughly every five years. The Southern Oscillation refers to variations in the temperature of the surface of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean (warming and cooling known as El Niño and La Niña respectively) and in air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific. The two variations are coupled: the warm oceanic phase, El Niño, accompanies high air surface pressure in the western Pacific, while the cold phase, La Niña, accompanies low air surface pressure in the western Pacific.[2][3] Mechanisms that cause the oscillation remain under study.

The accepted definition is a warming or cooling of at least 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) averaged over the east-central tropical Pacific Ocean. Typically, this anomaly happens at irregular intervals of 2–7 years and lasts nine months to two years.[5] The average period length is 5 years. When this warming or cooling occurs for only seven to nine months, it is classified as El Niño/La Niña “conditions”; when it occurs for more than that period, it is classified as El Niño/La Niña “episodes”.[6]

Emphasis mine. With a period of 2-7 years and a duration 0.75 to 2 years, it is pretty obvious this probably is not due to solar heating and atmospheric processes alone. Solar and atmospheric heating show annual, seasonal fluctuations. Also, solar heating has been pretty steady over these time scales, as would be the atmospheric response. So it does not seem to logically follow the kind of phenomena is driven by climate.

The amount of heat showing up in this 0.5° heating (El Niño) – or lack if it during cooling (El Niña) – is mind boggling large. Too large to be caused by Sun and Air alone. The other day it dawned on me we can estimate how much energy is required to achieve this kind of warming. And it begins with reviewing the Coriolis Effect on ocean currents, which creates the great Ocean Gyres:

Gyres are caused by the Coriolis Effect; planetary vorticity along with horizontal and vertical friction, which determine the circulation patterns from the wind curl (torque).[1] The term gyre can be used to refer to any type of vortex in the air or the sea, even one that is man-made, but it is most commonly used in oceanography to refer to the major ocean systems.

The “South Pacific Gyre” is the Earth’s biggest system of rotating ocean currents, bounded by equator to the north, Australia to the west, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to the south, and South America to the east.

The graph above [click to enlarge] illustrates this massive movement of water. It is these ocean gyres which pull warm water up the east coast of North America (i.e., the Gulf Stream) and Arctic waters down the West Coast. It is why most of us would rather swim off the coast of Virginia in the Summer than the off the coast of San Francisco. In the Southern Hemisphere it is identical. The eastern coast of South America gets warm water pumped pole-ward from the equatorial region, while the west coast has a massive cold flow of water from the Antarctic  (noted in the diagram as the Peru or Humboldt current).

It dawned on me that this massive amount of cold water flowing down the west coast of South America to the eastern equatorial region of the South Pacific would cool any solar or atmospheric warming without missing a beat. To under stand the amount of water flowing in this current, let’s look at the Gulf Stream for which there is more data available:

A great ocean current transporting about 70,000,000 tons (63,000,000 metric tons) of water per second (1000 times the discharge of the Mississippi River) northward from the latitude of Florida to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland.

Since the South Pacific Gyre is the largest on the planet, and the Humboldt one of the largest currents, we can use the Gulf Stream numbers as a conservative representation. That is a lot of water – per second! Try heating that on your stove.

Now let’s look closer at where the El Niño shows up, which will show us why it is impossible for this to be due to heating in the Western Pacific that then travels eastward to build up off the west coast of the Americas. It is impossible because the theory is swimming up stream of the ocean gyres.

Here is a classic El Niño thermal map from one of the largest El Niño periods on record (1997, which was followed by the warmest year on record since the 1960’s) – click all images to enlarge:

If you look closely you can see the hot El Niño phenomena is spreading westward off the coast of Peru. One could see this as building up eastward versus tapering off westward I guess. But when we look at the positions of the South Pacific Gyre currents it becomes clear which direction the water (and heat) is flowing.

I used the following close-up map of the currents in the area of the El Niño hot spot:

To estimate where the warm spot is originating versus spreading, I overlaid (as best I could) the current map on the JPL image of the phenomena (note, the two views are not from the same perspective, so I lined them up in the region of Central America to obtain the best overlay):

In order to better see the primary current flows, I added blue arrows for the cold Arctic and Antarctic currents coming down the west coast of the Americas. These then bend at the equator and flow east-to-west. I also added the warm Pacific equatorial flow that runs west-to-east using a red arrow.

First thing to notice is how the El Niño hot spot clearly trails off the Humboldt current  It is NOT coming off the west-to-east equatorial warm current.The equatorial current is well above the phenomena.

To reemphasize, with the polar currents dumping over 70,000,000 gross tons of cold water per second EACH into this area, it is impossible for atmospheric warming to warm this much water. If one BTU is required to warm one pound of water, the number to over power these cold currents is astronomical (and ridiculous). And yes, I have consider the Bernoulli effect of thermal rivers. I think that is what is keeping the warm spot below the west-to-east equatorial flow.

So if not solar/atmospheric heating from the west, what could it be?

One of my biggest peeves with Climate Science today is how it ignores the mass of molten metal under our feet. It is amazing how little we know about the core of the Earth and its effect on climate. The theory of plate tectonics was accepted within my lifetime, so it too is a very young branch of science. We know very little, but what we do know is mind boggling:

In the graph above we see the incredible warm mass existing below us. The big warning sign ‘not to scale‘ needs to be heeded with supreme caution. The mass of warm metal and rock  contained in the mantel and core is 6400 kilometers deep. The continental crust upon which we live is one tenth (10%) that molten column. The ocean crust is even thinner at only 1-2% thick (5-10 kilometers).

While our sampling of the atmospheric temperature from land based thermometers is poor (25% of the Earth’s surface taken with sporadic methodologies over a short historical time), and our sampling of the sea surface temperatures is pathetic (for 75% of the Earth’s surface with even less data) our understanding of the energy flow from below is as close to zero as you can get. I can say this. It is not even across the globe or constant in time (think Yellow Stone Park). So we have no idea what the energy input from Mother Earth is in or global energy balance. No idea at all. And with this grand ignorance we make sweeping declarations on global climate?

But we have much more information on the Earth than we did just 30 years ago.

For example, we recently discovered at the oceanic ridges a mass of underwater volcanic structures called black smokers:

What is important to understand about this  unique energy transfer system is that water at these pressures will retain and distribute massive amounts of heat energy. This happens because at these depths and pressures, water will not boil, and instead will take heat away – probably great distances:

In contrast to the approximately 2 °C ambient water temperature at these depths, water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging from 60 °C up to as high as 464 °C.

Water is a rapid transportation system of thermal energy. It can dissipate heat very rapidly. So if there is any energy source that can rapidly warm cold water from the Antarctic, it is likelyy to be volcanic heat trapped in water at extreme depths. This nutrient rich, super hot water would rise through the colder Humboldt current transferring its heat energy as it moved.

So, is there an under water ridge in the area? Yes. And it exists right under the El Niño phenomena. Here is an image of the Pacific Ocean:

Even the untrained eye can see the ridges off the north-western coast of South America that form a triangle . Here is a view with the triangle of ocean ridge highlighted in yellow:

The final piece to the puzzle is to now overlay the currents and warm ocean area to see what makes physical sense.

Clearly, the integrated view of currents, warm water and volcanic/tectonic structures would indicate the El Niño/El Niña phenomena are more likely to be due to underwater warming from volcanism than anything else. Note how the currents align almost perfectly with the triangle of ridges off the coast of South America. Also note how the equatorial current acts as a barrier for the warm waters to go north, instead bending them back to the south of the Equator. I added more red arrows to illustrate how the Humholdt current would draw the hot water over the triangular ridges away.

Also think about the oceanic geography. The ridges form a bowl that could hold much of  the super hot water under layers of colder, denser water. As the rate of volcanism rises or continues, the warm dome of water would peak over the ridges and then begin to spread and rise as the Humboldt begins to warm at the equator. This could be the 2-7 year cycle we see. The the pacific equatorial current could be pushing the water into the basin until it overflows. Once enough water is pulled from the bowel, the heating cycle begins.

The bowl inside the ridges is the pot, while the black smokers are the gas stove.

This makes sense when we look at the duration and cycles of El Niño/El Niña. Volcanic phenomena don’t operate on annual cycles like climate. In fact, this region is one of the most geologically active in the world. Active plate tectonics means massive amounts of energy transfer of all kinds. Again, think Yellowstone, but on a much bigger scale and under water.

The physics behind this theory for the El Niño/El Niña phenomena is much more sound than the idea that a ~0.5°C rise in temperature in the Western Pacific air temps can create a 0.5° rise in a current that is moving millions of tons of cold water per second many thousand miles away on the coast of South America. From the view of fluid dynamics, thermal dynamics and geology (plate tectonics) this theory makes much more sense.

27 responses so far

27 Responses to “El Niño/El Niña Unlikely Caused By Atmospheric Or Solar Forces”

  1. crosspatch says:

    99% of the activating energy of ocean circulation is wind patterns. El Nino and La Nina are manifestations of trade wind anomalies. Get stronger trades, you get a La Nina. Get slack trades, you get an El Nino. Also, in a La Nina, the ocean is net ABSORBING energy and in El Nino, it dumps that energy to atmosphere. La Nina conditions see very strong trade winds. This pushes water off the West coast of South America to the West. This results in cooler subsurface water welling up to take its place. Basically the warm surface waters are pushed Westward into the India Ocean and the Western Pacific Warm Pool. Also, there is less cloud cover when there are strong trades and less evaporation to make clouds from the cooler waters that have been pulled up from the coast of South America. This means more sunshine. More sunshine means more energy going into the Pacific waters. Don’t confuse energy with temperature!

    During the La Nina, the Western Pacific and Indian ocean are warming. When the trades slacken or sometimes even reverse (!) this warm water “sloshes” back to the East raising surface temperatures. This results in greater evaporation and cloud cover. The surface is now dumping that energy to the atmosphere with a net decrease in the amount of energy that it is receiving due to cloud cover. Now the Western Pacific and Indian ocean cool.

    I would recommend Bob Tisdale’s many articles on ENSO, and La Nina/El Nino as some good reading.

  2. Redteam says:

    AJ, very good. Excellent work in my opinion. I’m accepting your version as the best theory until or if it is proved not to be true.

    It is unfortunate that apparently CP didn’t take the time to read it. If he did, he certainly isn’t buying your theory. (and that’s the type person that supports Romney)

  3. AJStrata says:


    Sorry to burst your theories, but wind energy cannot stop ocean currents or overwhelm them. You may get some surface slow down in the currents, but like water running down hill, wind is not going to dent 70 million tons per second.

    Mass against mass – do the math.

  4. AJStrata says:

    Also CP compute the BTUs being moved. It is insane to think tons of water can be heated by a few additional degrees in air temp. Note that the solar flux and temps are pretty much stable when these phenomena happen. You would need to see massive heat or flux increases, not marginal ones, to warm that much moving cold water.

    BTW, evaporation does not care which direction the wind blows. It is well know evaporation is higher at higher water temps and increases with surface perturbations. Choppy waves cool faster. So wind based forces make no sense either.

    In windy warm water evap would increase, whether it moves west or east.

  5. crosspatch says:

    Wind energy is what CREATES ocean currents. You don’t have to believe me. You can look it up yourself.

    Wind activates the surface currents which, in turn, activate the deeper currents.

    For example, in the middle of the Atlantic we have generally high pressure for most of the year. This is commonly referred to as the “Bermuda High”. It sets up a circulation where the surface on the Western side of the Atlantic is pushed northward toward the Arctic. This water cools and eventually sinks. When it sinks it displaces water already down there.

    At the same time, strong winds around Antarctica cause an upwelling of Atlantic water. This sets up the NADW current that goes from pole to pole along the ocean bottom.

    Wind provides the energy. One explanation for why we go into glacial periods (and why we went into the LIA, even) was a change in the wind patterns where a low pressure (rather than high pressure) became a persistent weather pattern over the North Atlantic. This impeded the surface flow North and caused it to cut East at much lower latitude cutting off much of the North Atlantic from the warm water from the South. This also results in a slowdown of the NADW. The water coming up from the gulf never gets cold enough to sink

    In fact, there is evidence that in some places such as the South Pacific, a pool of very cold water forms at the bottom and becomes stagnant. The deep currents greatly slow in some places and stop in others. I’ve got a link around here somewhere to about a 70 page dissertation that is a pretty good read on the subject. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

  6. Crosspatch,

    Correlation is not causation. Event tight correlation.

    There are lots of hydraulic systems that control large mass flows with minor flow variations.

    However, the history of engineering is filled with the catastrophic failure of hydraulic systems that suddenly have to deal with more energy — in terms of more flow than they or designed too — or suddenly have a new unaccounted for flow energy that overwhelms what “controls” we have placed upon the system

    Are winds the actor, or the acted upon?

    And what are the “Special Conditions,” if any?

    We know from the geological record that the lowered salinity of the North Atlantic stopped the North Atlantic current once for centuries, caused an ice age, and changed the trade winds, among other things.

    So what other “Special Conditions” apply?

    The atmosphere is, in terms of mass, orders of magnitude smaller than the aqua-sphere.

    The aqua-sphere is many, many order of magnitude smaller than the geosphere and it is — as AJ pointed out — more closely coupled to the geosphere in terms of heat energy transfer than the atmosphere.

    We know less about the bottom of the ocean than we do about the Moon.

    AJ merely posits that geological energy input is another “Special condition” to our climate as applied to El Nino/La Nina

    Humility is called for here, not knee jerks.

    Knee jerks without data to refute the theory are no more science than witch burning.

  7. AJStrata says:

    CP, wind does not create currents. The Earth’s rotation creates the gyres, the Moon creates the tides. On top of these wind can have a 3rd order effect.

    For example, Winds cannot reverse currents or tides – only attenuate or enhance them. Even a hurricane’s storm surge can be neutralized by the tides…

  8. AJStrata says:

    Well said Trent – want to help me write more of my thoughts?

  9. Frogg1 says:

    Another interesting article out in the UK-DailyMail today:

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    … it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

    ‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

    Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

    The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

    ‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

    Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

    ‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.’

  10. MarkN says:

    AJ: Good theory, I have a couple of questions. The warming and cooling happens at a rapid rate, when it occurs. El Nino’s seem to appear out of nowhere and usually happen around Christmas. This would suggest that the cold water dome breaks down causing the warm water in the bowl to empty out quickly where it spreads south with the current and settles off the coast of Peru.

    Your theory is incomplete when it comes to the mechanism that causes this dome to break down and then reform. Plus you haven’t accounted for the volcanic activity variations of the earth’s core. That could help explain the duration and severity of the El Nino episodes.

    Tectonics is one of those greatly under appreciated topics in science and yet it is vital for higher life forms to develop and survive.

    Anyway, trade winds and atomospheric conditions would be properly understood as effects not causes.

  11. AJ,

    If you are going to evaluate climate, start and end with the following question:

    Where’s the Heat?!?

    The biggest issue I have with climate science is they don’t answer the three laws of thermodynamics.

    Where is the heat coming into the climate?

    Where is it stored?

    Where is the heat going?

    How are heat additions and subtractions expressed as weather and climate in terms of wind, rain, and water phase shifts (AKA gas to liquid to solid)?

    This is one of best articles I have found to spotlight that climate scientist blind spot:


    Article Short form:

    The wind blows away the sea ice, seeds the open water with ice crystals, promoting more sea ice…rinse and repeat.

    Thus you get cold/dense, O2 rich, salt concentrated, water to flow into the deep ocean.

    The climate scientists are seeing the katabatic winds (another name for air currents) as _causing_ the Antarctic Deep Ocean Current.

    My View Point:

    Katabatic Antarctic winds are less a_cause_ of the deep ocean current than the description of a heat transfer mechanism in a much larger system.

    What you are seeing is with a cold/dense _katabatic ocean current_, that now flows into the ocean deep, to be acted upon by the Earth’s rotation, the tidal pull of the Moon, and the terrain of the ocean bottom, is yet another heat transfer.

    Where is the heat in that system?

    Where is it added?

    How much is added?

    How much heat exists — AKA how many (huge unit)-joules are involved?

    Where is it going?

    In short — where is my energy budget?

  12. Jinny says:

    Because of the continuing drought here in Texas I find this subject extremely interesting. I don’t pretend to understand all the science or nuances involved but I never believed that man could cause or control climate changes. I hope one day we do have better methods for predicting changes in our weather patterns. Here in Texas we need to deal with water so we can conserve it for conditions like we are experiencing now.

    I don’t mind reading the conversation between Cross Patch and AJ, it’s entertaining with the back and forth between friends with conflicting views.

  13. Layman1 says:


    Very interesting. I’m going to read some of CP and Trent’s references and digest things a bit more before commenting on the merits. However your proposition is “thought provoking” and isn’t that the best compliment I can give you.

    So here I am trying to keep to my word to stay away from the irrational and subjective world of politics and Redteam has to throw in the mandatory Romney/Romney supporter insult. Here we are talking volcanic activity, tectonic shift, ocean currents, ENSO, energy balances, etc. and we get Romney brought intro the mix. I’ve been asked before how I define Romney Derangement Syndrome (RDS)… well… there you have it! 🙂

  14. AJStrata says:


    Actually I hinted at the dome break mechanism.

    First: assume the dome is building up, being pushed back by the Pacific Equatorial current against the continental shelf. But at some point the dome overwhelms the Bernoulli current walls and is able to flow west ward like a damn breaking.

    Second, this breaking damn empties the bowl not just to the top, but down in a good ways as the Antarctic current pushes out the top layers of the bowl.

    3rd, the Bernoulli effects of isolated layers finally takes hold and seals the top of the bowl and it begins a multi-year filling process.

    If you have been to Geisers and see their surging nature, you understand how it could work across hundreds of geisers under water.

    Think of a really, really slow Yellowstone Geiser.

    The period between overflows (El Nino’s) is determined by the geologic and volcanic activity (and thus the 2-7 year cycle).

  15. MarkN says:

    AJ: Good explanation of a very complex system. Now if an isolated El Nino system off of South America is so complex how can the entire climate of planet Earth be so simple as AGW.

    That was my first warning on AGW, the human Co2 causation was oversimplistic. Anything on the scale of global warming must have hundreds of layers of complexity.

  16. Redteam says:

    Layman1: You don’t read too well either.
    “and Redteam has to throw in the mandatory Romney/Romney supporter insult. ”
    You consider reference to people that support Romney to be an insult?

    and:” I’ve been asked before how I define Romney Derangement Syndrome (RDS)…”
    Actually, you were asked to define ABRDS (since that seems to be your malady)

    CP: your statement:”It sets up a circulation where the surface on the Western side of the Atlantic is pushed northward toward the Arctic. This water cools and eventually sinks. When it sinks it displaces water already down there.” doesn’t seem to make sense. You are referring to the Gulf Stream flowing northward and saying that it is cooling when it gets up north and sinks displacing the extremely cold Arctic water that is already there. It defys logic that the atmosphere can cool the gulf stream to a cooler temperature (necessary to displace colder arctic water) If I misunderstood, where did you insinuate that the extreme cooling of the gulf stream come from?

  17. Layman1 says:


    Help me out. Maybe I misunderstood you. I read and reread your post. You stated that in reference to AJ’s theory, which you accept, “CP didn’t take the time to read it. If he did, he certainly isn’t buying your theory. (and that’s the type person that supports Romney).”

    So, as I read it: 1) you assume that because CP doesn’t agree with AJ that he didn’t take the time to read his theory (this post) and 2) because CP didn’t “buy” AJ’s theory he the type of person that supports Romney”. Of course I suppose that could also mean that anyone who doesn’t agree with AJ supports Romney.

    To me that is a non-sequiter; it is an unfounded personal attack; and it introduces Romney into a scientific discussion where politics has no place (one of the reasons we attack the AGM alarmists). Hence I hypothesize RDS on display.

  18. Layman1 says:

    By the way, I don’t know what you mean by ABRDS. I assume it means Anybody But Romney Derangement Syndrome and I personally have never used the term. I know lots of folks who don’t like or trust Romney and as long as they talk issues I’m cool with their opinion and I’m up for the debate.

    However, when people start talking nonsense, non-sequiters, ad-hominem personal attacks, and attacking the man from the standpoint of Marxists, etc. I start to believe there is something deeper going on. I’m not sure the source of this visceral reaction to him (although I have my suspicions) but it bothers me, and I call it RDS.

    I’ve said since day one the mission objective is getting rid of Obama and we should all support whomever the GOP nominee is. I’ve argued that if its Romney and you don’t trust him then make sure he has a conservative House and Senate sending him the bills that Harry Reid stalled and Obama would never sign.

    And yet I’ve had people respond that if Romney is the nominee they’ll sit out (take their marbles and go home). They’ve come flat out and said the’d rather have four more years of Obama than see Romney become President. When I hear/read that response I can only suppose one thing: RDS.

  19. Redteam says:

    Layman1, sure you knew what ABRDS meant, I’ve used it in response every time you’ve used RDS.

    “when people start talking nonsense, non-sequiters, ad-hominem personal attacks, and attacking the man from the standpoint of Marxists, ”
    none of which I have ever done. My attack against Romney is that he is a liberal, that thinks and acts as a liberal. He only became a ‘conservative’ when he decided to run as president. That is patently dishonest. Why not portray himself as what he is and let the people buy or reject, but for goodness sake’s at least pretend to be honest.
    I don’t know of, and i challenge you to point out one single ‘conservative’ thing he has ever done, in his whole lifetime. Just one.

    Now just because I use the argument that Romney is not honest does not say or imply that any other person is more or less honest than Romney. I basically do not know an honest politician. I feel that all of them basically done and/or say whatever rewards them the most.

    I will say that if you describe Obama as a socialist, communist, muslim, I think you would be very accurate. That’s how I would describe him. I’ve personally never heard him utter a thought that I think is true.

    I will not sit out the election. Well,, with one exception. Obama is clearly not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible. If the Repubs also nominate an ineligible person, such as Rubio or Jindal, I would not vote. I think only eligible persons should be on the ballot.
    I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances (not even for dog catcher)

    In reference to your first point, My reference is to people that do not read and understand the truth are basically the people that tend to support Romney. (clearly CP did not read(if he did he wasted his time because he clearly didn’t get the message) and then continues the same old argument as if there is not a true story available to them. AJ’s theory certainly isn’t about the direction of the wind.

    I appreciate your comments.