Good morning Kulvir Singh,

Criticism is a very important part of science, regardless of the status of a scientist. In my experience, scientists considered renowned in their field are held under less scrutiny, then say, a entry level scientist. This is not necessarily right, especially if the renowned scientist, who usually offers expert opinions, provides a weak argument that is then accepted because of his or her status. When criticising someone it is important to do so without insults. It is also important to be passive and objective when criticising. The other part of the criticism is to make sure that you have the argument in hand that will disprove the person you are criticising. I don't think Sofia is wrong for criticising Kenneth but would have done it without the political picture of Trump with a polar bear. The subliminal message there is that would seem that Kenneth shares Trump like views (I'm not saying that, but some may get that impression). Sofia is passionate about her research and I believe that she knows a lot about this problem. The issue though, if you pay attention to the details, is if you involve a political spin and attack someone aggressively, the response to the aggressor will never be a good one. For instance, in the following post Kenneth responds by saying its not wrong to criticize scientists with a following statement saying Sofia is wrong.

I'm not an expert in that field, so I don't no the severity of the problem and am not willing to say anything about the state of polar bears. Even if you're passionate about your argument it is important to exercise an approach that is inviting to the other side. This will forge a better communication and sharing of ideas. If this is not exercised, then then you will have two sides claiming the opposite side is wrong. Sometimes this also results in a reduction of logical reasoning.

I wasn't aware that these issues were similar as in India or Asia but am not surprised since they are industrialized nations as well. You are right to be concerned about the problem. What we need, however, is the integration of science and politics. We need people who know how to lead open discussions in order to come up with guides toward a solution. Finally, we need people who can put their personal political agendas aside, look at the broader problems that exist outside the life of the individual, who can put money and fame aside, and govern with an open mind and a sense of cultural worldliness.

Dear Dr. Singh,

global warming describes one direction of the climate change which is an integral part of the evolution of our Earth since its atmosphere has come into existence.

With kind regards Harald G. Dill

DEAR Dr Harald G. Dill

Thanks for responding.

Can we continue to perceive this unidirectional change in the days to come.Keeping a holistic view of the situation I think we have to mention it specifically for the zones/regions .

Simailarly, if we read literature, then exceptional crests or troughs wrt weather parameters has been reported even for at least 100 or more years ago.

From this can we assume that GW shall be going on irrespective of human activity in a unidirectional mode.This man that whatever we do,it is hardly going to make any dent on GW or CC per se.

with kind and best regards

kulvir

A large Part of the coastal countries will be under sea water within next 20 years.

The water level of the sea is increasing due to melting of polar ice!

How still such question arise!

Sir, there may be many other cases to substantiate your word but fact is that till date there is not much change except for certain extremes or intensity of weather forces.One group of school advocates that hole created in ozone layer is getting small and many more.

Keeping all weather interactions in one system,my query still remains to reach at some conclusion after deliberations with various global researchers working on the aspect.

regards

Dear colleagues:

During the Earth history we have had many periods denominated as thalassocratic in geological terms, which means that sea was encroaching upon land and narrowing down its size . One of the most striking events of that kind was during the waning phase of the Mesozoic era.

Kind regards

H.G.Dill

Dear K. Sing,

A large number of serious scientific works have established that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas over the decades have caused an increase in temperature, which is ~2°C. And if we dive down the geological history of the planet Earth we come to know that early Earth had much higher concentration of carbon-dioxide gas (without the humans), and it was removed slowly throughout the geological history. Plus the fact that carbon-dioxide is not the only driver of climate. This becomes obvious when we look at the composition of the air that we breathe. It mainly contains nitrogen (~76%) and oxygen (~21%). The concentration of carbon dioxide is just ~0.038% and the first two major gases in our atmosphere are NOT greenhouse gases, which means that there concentration has probably little to no effect on warming of the atmosphere. And the role of Sun, which is central to the existence of life on the Earth as it provides heat that is required to keep the temperature and atmospheric circulation in balance. So the small amount of greenhouse gases (mainly water vapor, and little of CO2) traps (absorb and re-emit) the infrared radiation, increasing the temperature of the atmosphere. Again we need to look how concentrations of water vapor (the major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere) have changed over the geological time, and compare it with Holocene, that may give us some idea how it plays a role. Similarly we have to map the variations of clouds, the condensed form of water vapor, over the centuries or more to accurately map and understand the role in atmospheric composition, temperature etc. And we know that volcanic eruptions contribute about 1% to the total CO2 budget, and thus this needs to be shown to the public. Apart from this there are also small percentage of naturally occurring other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which includes methane and nitrous oxide. And humans has also contributed some new varieties of synthetic greenhouse gases, which include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These gases have also influenced the temperature structure of our atmosphere over the decades of industrial revolution on the planet.

So it seems here we are: the present concentrations of gases in our atmosphere are both natural and man-made. The contribution of each gas in modifying the concentration of greenhouses gases in our atmosphere is still vigorously debated, and most of the scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor, but we are yet to solve the problem over the geological timescale. However, humans ought to be responsible not to aggravate the obvious problems that we are facing right now, and must workout solution for a better future. Please remember that Earth is a delicate system of systems, and we are part of it, any of our wrong actions can alter its delicate balance, which will ultimately destroy life, including us.

Cheers

Afroz

AFROZ

I APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK.

POINT IS THAT SHOULD WE CONSIDER HUMAN LIFE WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT OR SOME THING ELSE IS ALSO PLAYING FROM UNIVERSE.

IF SOMETHING IS ALSO THERE THEN CAN WE ASSUME THAT WE AS A HUMAN HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT.

IN THAT CONTEXT CAN I HOLD MY QUERY OPEN FOR DELIBERATIONS OR NOT AT ALL?

regards

Dear K. Sing,

As I write above. It seems here we are: the present concentrations of gases in our atmosphere are both natural and man-made. The contribution of each gas in modifying the concentration of greenhouses gases in our atmosphere is still vigorously debated, and most of the scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor, with some arguing aganist it, but we are yet to solve the problem over the geological timescale. However, humans ought to be responsible not to aggravate the obvious problems that we are facing right now, and must workout solution for a better future. Please remember that Earth is a delicate system of systems, and we are part of it, any of our wrong actions can alter its delicate balance, which will ultimately destroy life, including us.

Hope this helps.

Cheers

Afroz

Dear

Nothing new as this is Just repetitive content of you previous reply.

Dear K. Sing,

My first comment answers your questions but you repeated your questions and that is why I had to repeat my answers!

What you are questioning is right and that is why we are still looking for answers on a geological timescale.

Cheers

Kenneth

Greetings

Thanks for wonderful updates.

What is your opinion wrt replies given by A A Shah and also comment something about my apprehension.

Best regards

Kulvir

It is real my dear. I have experienced it first hand. It used to rain very hard in my village and we would see small water fountains on the footpaths that we used to get to school about 40 years ago. I returned to that village over the Christmas holiday. I was shocked to find out that it was so dry!

Keeping in view of updates by Kenneth Sir,can we still imagine that at that time also human intervention was main factor for melting of ice and rising of temperature.

Moreover CO2 concentrations were also indicative that this trend is having long history.

If this is not true ,are not we making CC and GW a big balloon and giving unnecessarily weight age.

Let us invite deliberations.

Best regards

Borden

Greetings

How can we correlate these two points.

Please provide bit detail so that I may understand that.

Regards

Thanks Kenneth Sir for nice update.

Well, can I think that now we are observing these short term abbrations of high temperature or low rainfall in some areas with more curious than it necessitate.

Your articles also envisaged something interesting in this line.

Best regards

The deliberations are really interesting and worthy. I would like to know more

Well Sofia

Greetings

One of RG member told me about severe chilling in their local area which may hamper crop production.

So starving bear as food is not appropriate may be definitely indicator of a certain event but it's correlation with the subject still needs to be clarified from your side please.

Regards

Can we imagine significant changes brought about by this alterations over period of 200 years.

Or

More worse part is yet to be witnessed.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_abiotic_stress_lead_to_biotic_stress_and_vice_a_versa_How_can_we_draw_conclusions_on_this_aspect?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions

I will appreciate Sofia if you can read viewpoint of Petra in attached link of RG.

BEST REGARDS

Dear Kulvir,

Thanks for the question. I followup.

Regards!

Adel

Kenneth M Towe

I agree with your view points.

So can we imagine that expected changes will be experienced much earlier leading to kind of catastrophic effect on Agriculture per se

or

It will go in a slow manner in such a may that in the mean time researchers will be able to mitigate it or work our alternatives for any such activity.

Climate change as opposed to global warming was also politically motivated since many thought the term global warming was too controversial. Although most of the world shows a net warming, there are certain regions that have net cooling spots. One region that comes to mind I believe is over Russia or near Russia. Also, according to models the warming affect is evident in the troposphere but with a cooling signature in the stratosphere.

Edward

Can u share it's implications

Sure. I can do that. In the U.S. there are people that either believe climate change is real or those who think its a hoax. Many, not all, who think climate change is real fall on one side of the political line while those who think its a hoax fall on the other side of the political line. Back when the global warming term was used, many would cite cold spells during winter seasons--take earlier this year for example--as an argument for saying global warming is false. Most people who tend to be vocal about climate really know nothing about climate and assume weather and climate are the same thing. The atmosphere is extremely complex with various circulations as well as changes that occur in the jet stream. People often refer to surface temperature as a metric of climate change, which can be used to an approximation, but the bulk of the energy content resides above the surface. Climate change was used to substitute the more controversial term of global warming in order to account for the variability of climate, whether towards net-warming or cooling. There are also regional climates where certain regions may be warmer the climatic average. Some others may have a net-cooling, like over part of Russia. There is also evidence that precipitation patterns are shifting (i.e. regions are either becoming dryer or wetter than historic trends). The major implication behind using global warming rather than climate change is that the community faith in science has deteriorated. Take the presidential campaign of 2016, for example. Some of these arguments, specifically about the terminology chosen, have been used to attack the credibility of the science and push different political agendas. This is a lesson I hope the broader science community can learn so prevent a tainted image of experts in the field by the community,.

Edward, it is a good information.

So do you think that Sofia is wrong in criticising Kenneth Towe.

One thing is for sure that we are here to simply discus and reach to some conclusions after getting all possible evidences.

I donot appreciate the way sometimes researchers express their feelings towards a particular point expressed by a learned researcher.

The politics behind such issues is going on in a similar way in India as well as Asia per se.

However as a researcher if this sensitive issue is not dealt with demanding care,I am afraid that losses shall be drastic.

Truly informative with real facts from real time workers.

Climate change – specifically global warming – is one of the more controversial issues mankind is facing. Consensus about climate change’s definition, effects, and causes, especially the role that humans play in the acceleration of climate change, is virtually impossible to reach. The controversy is particularly clear in the energy industry, where many assert that there is no scientific agreement about the causes of global warming or its potential problems.

The difficulty of sourcing impartial and accurate information about global warming and its possible causes in the midst of aggressive campaigning by both sides (environmentalists and energy advocates), dilutes the importance of the issue and confuses the average citizen. And interestingly, concern about global warming and its existence is split along partisan political lines according to a Pew Research Poll released January 27, 2014. It found that:

• Eighty-four percent (84%) of Democrats believe there is solid evidence that global warming is occurring, while less than half of Republicans (46%) agree. Only one in four Tea Party Republicans believe that global warming is real.
• Almost two-thirds of Democrats believe that global warming is caused by humans, while fewer than one-quarter (23%) of Republicans believe man is the cause. That percentage falls to only one in ten (9%) of Republicans who have Tea Party leanings.
• Partisan attitudes are reflected in support for new environmental regulation: 74% of Democrats, 67% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans favor new emission limits on power plants.
• Americans tend to worry less about climate change (40%) than people around the world (52%), ranking it second to last in issues facing the country, falling behind deficit reduction, immigration, and gun reform.

Interesting question.

It is a matter of devices used to test whether or not a change is due to fossil fuel combustion. There are very unsensitive tests and common sense logics that leave room to uncertainity, and several profit makers can argue against their dismissal. They like to keep going very basic activities with little knowhow and progress. A reference for statistics on biosystems is Parmesan and Yohe in Nature 421 and a change is occurring on over a thousand of biosystems for climate change. Any further detail about what was the cause requires to test it without men activities but air circulation mixes every thing. In meantime I suggest to avoid fossil burning places. Just for the smell.

More I try to understand this issue by culminating all the pros and cons and expert views, more complexes do come in mind keeping in view of all factors and interaction thereof.

While going through mid of any researcher paper makes points clear but at concluding remarks of various such articles,bit confusion flares up to say something straight forward.

Just consider this: if you increase the global energy of a system, the dynamics MUST change...

The existance of negationist party is not a proof but an hypothesis. As it happens for gods or extraterrestrial meetings there is freedom of thought and we keep legal logics for arguing about confidence. Consensus requires a critical level of variation but chianging variables is a common trick against any evidence. If one breaths an exhaust smoke dies and this is enough to me.

Let us delberate bit more by inviting opinions on the above mentioned.

Good morning Kulvir Singh,

Criticism is a very important part of science, regardless of the status of a scientist. In my experience, scientists considered renowned in their field are held under less scrutiny, then say, a entry level scientist. This is not necessarily right, especially if the renowned scientist, who usually offers expert opinions, provides a weak argument that is then accepted because of his or her status. When criticising someone it is important to do so without insults. It is also important to be passive and objective when criticising. The other part of the criticism is to make sure that you have the argument in hand that will disprove the person you are criticising. I don't think Sofia is wrong for criticising Kenneth but would have done it without the political picture of Trump with a polar bear. The subliminal message there is that would seem that Kenneth shares Trump like views (I'm not saying that, but some may get that impression). Sofia is passionate about her research and I believe that she knows a lot about this problem. The issue though, if you pay attention to the details, is if you involve a political spin and attack someone aggressively, the response to the aggressor will never be a good one. For instance, in the following post Kenneth responds by saying its not wrong to criticize scientists with a following statement saying Sofia is wrong.

I'm not an expert in that field, so I don't no the severity of the problem and am not willing to say anything about the state of polar bears. Even if you're passionate about your argument it is important to exercise an approach that is inviting to the other side. This will forge a better communication and sharing of ideas. If this is not exercised, then then you will have two sides claiming the opposite side is wrong. Sometimes this also results in a reduction of logical reasoning.

I wasn't aware that these issues were similar as in India or Asia but am not surprised since they are industrialized nations as well. You are right to be concerned about the problem. What we need, however, is the integration of science and politics. We need people who know how to lead open discussions in order to come up with guides toward a solution. Finally, we need people who can put their personal political agendas aside, look at the broader problems that exist outside the life of the individual, who can put money and fame aside, and govern with an open mind and a sense of cultural worldliness.

Good Morning Edward

I am in total agreement with your statement and that too without any kind of burden on my mind.

However, there is definitely a big and clear-cut difference in expressing opinions .

The way you express it is wonderful and hardly any scientist will deny this.

I know that criticism has to be there and until there is confliction in opinion, discussion cannot flow further.

But giving your opinion in a way which tries to malign or bit some what unwanted and disgraced words give an illusion of non scientific temperament.

Perhaps we have to learn much more (at least me) in giving our expressions with good critic but less of pinpoint.

Your opinion on the matter per se is really wonderful and informative from both points of view (scientific and mode of expression).

Have a great day.

So should we opt for climate change rather than global warming in addressing any view points?

Sofia

Good day

Let us jointly move forward in hope of healthy discussion on the subject.I never tried to amplify anything but if someone has perceived it,I request to leave and forget it.

We are here to share ideas and opinions.You are also welcome for the same.

Best regards

Environmentalists often focus on the plight of polar bears when discussing the decrease in Arctic sea ice. This is of course tragic, but in my view a far more serious consequence is the impact of melting sea ice on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), and the Gulf Stream which is a part of that. Salt water is more dense than fresh water, and melting ice is a source of fresh water. The upshot is that a decrease in Arctic Sea ice is linked to a decrease in the AMOC which is an important factor in the climate of the US east coast and western Europe. The loss of sea ice also results in less sunlight being reflected, and more solar energy absorbed which accelerates the warming in the polar regions.

Kulvir: You said "Simailarly, if we read literature, then exceptional crests or troughs wrt weather parameters has been reported even for at least 100 or more years ago."

One consequence of a warming Arctic is that the meridional (N/S) temperature gradient will decrease, which would decrease the speed of the jet stream. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that it is not yet clear whether that would lead to an increase in the waviness of the jet stream. If the average speed decreases however, the eastward motion of weather systems could decrease, so a weather system would persist for a longer period of time. So for example the cumulative precipitation during a single precipitating low pressure system could increase, with the potential for flooding in flood-prone areas.

Shocking information

I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT SHOCKING INFORMATION

There is certainly some degree of hype around this subject.

The topic is important so I invite you to continue the discussion.

Does any of you conduct research in this area? Apparently, the greenhouse effect is an irreversible process. the only thing that can be done is to slow down this process and thus adverse weather anomalies, unusual atmospheric phenomena, disasters caused by climate change. The development of industry based on traditional energy sources, ie burning of minerals, still dominates in many regions of the world. In domestic terms, the management of economies often boils down to economic growth, development of the industry without taking into account environmental protection issues and analysis of greenhouse gas emissions. In national economic policies, the tendency of the race is dominating for a higher number of economic growth, and the negative effects of this growth are forgotten. An attitude is assumed that the next generations are worried about how to solve this problem. Such an approach will accelerate only the negative effects of the global greenhouse effect and the emergence of disasters and natural disasters about the sources of climate change in a larger part of the world. More and more often the question is asked: how can we stop this process only as this process of warming up of average temperatures on Earth could be slowed down? What scale of this downturn could be generated if mankind would start to take this problem seriously? Does any of you conduct research in this area? Has any of you developed a theoretical model that would answer the question: Will switching all energy, communication and industry to renewable energy sources and ecological technologies significantly slow down the greenhouse effect on Earth?

Many research centers indicate a close correlation between the scale of greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 and the rate of rise of the average temperature on the planet Earth.

More and more research centers operating in different countries and investigating climate change state that the progressing greenhouse effect on Earth is already a fact. As a result, the risk of increasingly frequent and increasingly dramatic climate disasters is increasing. Man has less and less time to counteract these negative processes.

It is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations.

In view of the above, I am asking you to answer the following question: Is the greenhouse effect on Earth already objectively recognized by the climate research centers as an irreversible process?

I invite you to the discussion

Dear colleagues,

I would like to draw your attention to the paper of mine the full text of which can be downloaded from the Researchgate server:

Critical Elements for Green Technologies – A critical review - Supplements to the presentation Critical Elements for Green Technologies – A critical review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328278303_Critical_elements_for_green_technologies_-_A_critical_review.

I hope you will look at some issues of global warming or climate change from a different angle after having perused this text.

With kind regards

Harald G. Dill

Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...

Dear Colleagues:

You cannot change the climate or the climate zones across the globe. Any attempt is in vain and only a demonstration of overconfidence.

But you can change your behavior

1. As far as the energy resources are concerned “do not put all your eggs in one basket” and strive for an energy mix. Each way of power supply has its strong and weak points. Finding intelligent solutions to minimize the weak points and strengthen the strong points is the key element. You have to connect the various energy resources and hook them up with storage systems in the same way. Shut downs of means of energy supply , hasty backfill of mines and short-sided and ill-designed installations of waste disposals might future generation deprive of an economic use of more highly sophisticate methods to exploit the primary resources and recycling of the residues.

2. The use of mineral resources directly follows suit to that what has been told under point 1. We must combine the traditional way of mining with another way of “urban mining”

3. The human resources are the hardest nut to crack to exploit them so as to be made beneficial to all of us.

The magic words in your lifestyle should be:

“realistic”

“moderate”

“farsighted”

“ethical to religious”

Good Luck !

H.G.Dill

Intact I am not opposed to views of H G DILL,but can we keep our fingers crossed for such issues.

We will have to strive for certain essential points which can make a dent, though a little scratch.

For example take case of paddy cultivation in Punjab,India.

This area is ecologically unfit for paddy but despite that government policy for supporting price compels farmers to pull water from upto 500 ft +.As a result most of places have turned into dark or grey blocks where water level cannot be recharged by any amount of rainfall.Consequently biotic factors like insects are playing role.

So somewhere someone has to intervene.

It is a reality