It is a fact, not lie and there is no marketing in it. But there are certain countries likely to be benefited by such global warming with regard to agriculture. And there are evidences to prove , such global warming is triggered by anthropogenic activities...

It is a fact, not lie and there is no marketing in it. But there are certain countries likely to be benefited by such global warming with regard to agriculture. And there are evidences to prove , such global warming is triggered by anthropogenic activities...

If we agree on the effect of GHGs to absorb the long wave radiation and held it near the earth's surface in the form of thermal energy, and if we believe that the concentration of GHGs are continually increasing in the atmosphere because of anthropogenic activities, how we consider it as a lie? As Dr. Anoop stated, agriculture in temperature or cool areas may benefit from global warming while other regions who have already warm temperature may be affected by global warming.

Even in cool areas, global warming has effect on production of starchy crops such as maize and potato because starchy crops give high yield in cool areas where rate of photosynthesis is high.

eSo, global warming is not lie but there are many issues associated with it in developed and developing countries.

Birhanu well explained. Sometimes I wonder , is global warming that threatening to crop production , especially big three crops like corn, rice and wheat. How come global crop harvest has tripled over 1961..? Where is global warming affecting our agriculture so GHGs...

Thank you ( Anoop Kumar Srivastava & Birhanu Iticha ) for the answer Sometimes questions may be asked for the purpose of increasing the information. Regards

Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are about 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The global average surface temperature is increasing and it is certain to go up further. According to a continuous study conducted by the NASA, the earth’s average global temperature has risen by 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the thermometer readings have risen continuously. In different parts of the world, slight biological and biodiversity changes are underway following gradual increase in temperature. The question is that "what is the tolerable temperature until which we remain ignorant to the issues of global warming"?

Thank you very much Kenneth M Towe for answering. I also think that manipulation of the universe is not easy and there is a natural balance and cycles of nature, including heat, water, atmosphere ... etc

Dr. Kenneth's statement "...carbon is incorporated into organic matter in the biosphere and may eventually be stored in the Earth as fossil fuels."

It's right - Don't treat CO2 only as 'pollution' - We should have respect for CO2.

It helps in keeping earth warm essentially required for human and other living creatures, and in producing crops (photosynthesis essentially requires CO2 ) for 7.6 million people, gives energy (stored as coal) for modern civilization etc. Regards

Kindly see through this...

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.Wg7YfFWWa1s

Dr. Kenneth's statement - "Scientists are concerned that we cannot lower CO2 without huge and rapid action with technology that is not even at global scale"

It is absolutely correct. This type of measures may be successful in regional/local scale not at global scale that to after a big investment.

Regards

I was surprised by what I can find by googling ’Global Warming and the Club of Rome’. Also search for a Swedish scientist Bergland for his role in the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme.

Kenneth

Please check out the Wikipedia link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome for a summary account. One of their important goal is to unite the human race through the identification of a common enemy. I think I first came across the Club when reading James Lovelock.

Both !

Because of the current administration in Washington D.C., myself and many other scientists who both study and attempt to mitigate the results of climate change are leaving the U.S. The arrogant, ignorance in Washington D.C. is revealed by the fact that the U.S. is the only nation in the world who has not signed on to the climate change accord. Because I work in semi-arid regions of the world, I see the impact of climate change already. From out of control erosion of farmland in southern Italy to dry lakes in Iran and the western U.S., to the increase of dust in the atmosphere, and the increasing violence of tropical storms. I don't need to be hit on the head with a brick. We need to stop discussing "if" climate change is occurring, and start implementing solutions both for controlling or eliminating the causes (coal!!!!!), and begin mitigation programs to stop and reverse the affects of climate change. Unfortunately, it is the poorer nations of the world that will be affected first, so that is why some of the richer nations are dragging their feet ...the U.S. China and Germany still will not stop using coal. I have removed myself from the discussion and an trying to do something. That is why I am starting grass-roots movements in southern Italy that will work towards eliminating the causes of erosion and begin restoration. If we waited until the central government in Rome provided funding...we would all be dead in just a few decades. Cost for addressing global change should not be an issue, maybe now that the Republicans are giving the wealthy a tax break the states should weigh in and hit them up for a global change tax? I can hear the screams already from the Trump family. Anyway, because governments (except perhaps France) are loath to provide the funding, it falls to the people to begin the revolution...and education of the people regarding how climate change will affect them, is the starting point. It is the educated public that will in the end force governments to act. For that reason, it is the obligation of scientists to present their findings to the people, and not just a conferences and in papers so that they can get promotions. We do need to become publicists...we need to engage the people in newspaper articles, on the internet, in the schools, at city council meetings, and in legislatures, and parliaments. We cannot allow climate change to be a political football. It must be de-politicised. Only then will the action that is needed be taken.

Peter

The problem is the reduction of CO2 emissions has been identified as the single cause and solution. This is not supported by the scientific evidence including past records. More CO2 is in fact beneficial. You need to catch up on past discussions.

I guess we need to ask the people of India, China and Tehran if they think CO2 and soot from coal burning are beneficial. That is if they can get their masks off long enough to answer. My friends in Tehran wouldn't even go outside it was so bad. I watched southern Italy burn this summer, and choked on the smoke all summer long. We need to ban coal and petroleum if for no other reason then the health of the people of the earth. Global warming is another issue entirely. And how is raising the earth's temperature 2 or 3°C beneficial? Shall we ask the creatures who died during the Permian Triassic extinction event if they think that CO2 build up in the atmosphere was a problem. The only people who argue that it isn't work for coal or oil companies.

I also have the same question especially I did a research about vegetation dynamic and its coupling climate factors in Inner Mongolia Plateau with 1 million square kilometers in China . I found there is a decrease trend in the temperature in most area of Inner Mongolia through the interpolation based on the daily data from 45 meteorological stations. It may, in some aspects, support that there is not a warming phenomenon in this area, however, it also may be compensated by the policy. Whether it is warming depends on comparison with a normal temperature, however, it is hard to say what is a 'normal' temperature.

I understand that. But I am trying to deal with mitigating the damage that is being done. I deal with the consequences of changed rainfall patterns such as mitigating landscape erosion, drying lakes, etc. I also realize that we may already have gone too far, that we are already doomed. That is why it is arrogant ignorance for governments not to adopt emergency measures. But as long as climate nay sayers fill crucial positions in the U.S. government...we have no chance at all of surviving.

The Paris Accord does not demand CO2 capture so it is just a strawman in the discussion. There is no mention in the agreement text of any lowering of CO2 at all and the 350 ppm goal is an invention. The Paris Accord has a stated goal to limit the global warming to 1½ or 2 °C and the methods used are that countries have goals for how much they should reduce their emissions. That means emitting less CO2.

https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20II/Chapter%20XXVII/XXVII-7-d.en.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I have challenged Kenneth many times to show where in the agreement he finds the demand for CO2 removal from the atmosphere and specifically the 350 ppm goal. So if he cannot produce a pagenumber it is because the story is full of hay!

On account of global warming, climate is changing very fast, ice caps at poles are melting, heavy rainfall is occurring at many places on the earth, prediction of submergence of low lying cities are forecasted. Leaders and scientists are passing sleepless nights and meeting frequently to tackle the issue. However, you have now understood the fact. Now it is your sacred responsility to motivate people to avoid luxurious life style and consume less power to fight against global warming. Thanks.

Mr. Radhashyam Muduli,

"..............to motivate people to avoid luxurious life style and consume less power......". It's a good suggestion. Is is possible in practice? Can people down their living standard, where they have reached? It may be mentioned that the per capita energy consumption in the third world is very less in comparison to the developed countries. It is also to be analysed the extent of contribution of anthropogenic activities to so called global warming. Because, natural variations have also role in global warming. But, still we do not know the percentages of contributions.

I think that we have to give more stress on research for environment friendly technologies. Of course, simultaneously we have to also find out the necessary measures to reduce CO2 (emission due to human activities). Global warming due to natural fluctuations is beyond our control.

Thanks and regards

sir,

Practically, it is difficult, then what can be the alternative solution ,please suggest to save self, planet earth and next generations to come on earth?

Global warming is true. The lie, that global warming is untrue, is marketed by the industrialized countries which dominate the world, e.g. Donald Trump's USA and and more subtly by Vladimir Putin's oil rich Russia.

The emission of greenhouse gases has contributed to globlal warming which is a fact. Some of the effects of this phenomena are increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, changing precipitation, and expansion of deserts in the subtropics. That's why, it is necessary to reduce this emissions for human kind welfare.

Global warming is responsible for increase in the level of Sea water causing Flooding and Tsunami, Hurricanes directly or indirectly. Eating of land by sea water due to increase in sea level i have seen by myself. Regards

Karol,

In the 1950s the whole of the developed world was burning coal as their major energy source.That produced an increase in condensation nucleii which led to an increase in clouds and planetary albedo, preventing a rise in global temperatures.

global warming is a scientific and environment truth.

Global warming is a fact and we are affected worst by this disaster. The truth is that it is man made and man's effort is needed to cont

The truth is that global warming is man made and only humans can control it through their dedicated efforts. The process of global warming can be reversed and we can see ice caps on both poles which have melted down on effect of global warming. If not any remedial action is taken, the rate of warming will multiply leading to fast deterioration of environmental conditions. The remedial action is slow and negative economic growth of all nations in the world.

Karol Pietrak I don't think you have seen many "politically correct" scientist that claimed the global temperature was solely determined by the CO2 concentration in the past. Then all the factors we know are considered we can explain the observed temperature for many thousands years reasonable well and therefor we can also predict the effect of increasing CO2 now and see it match the observed temperature increase the latest half century while the other known factors were not changing significant.

Besides I agree with Alastair Bain McDonald explanation for the cooling or at least pause in warming in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

This book might be helpful in getting answer:

https://books.google.com.pk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mbdrCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=RgKrACYldo&sig=FJrKl7HdD2vRyhYBnVDA23ehpmM#v=onepage&q&f=false

Karol Pietrak,

You wrote " Why so many scientists endorse the politically-correct conclusion so easily and no one explains where is the expected 12 deg C increase since 1950? "

The effects of CO2 are not instantaneous. We won't see the full effects of the rise in CO2 until the ice sheets have melted and global albedo has changed. What the 'politically correct' scientists are missing is that the direct effects of CO2 are to melt ice sheets at the poles, and not raise temperatures globally where the greenhouse effect of CO2 is swamped by the greenhouse effect from water vapour.

But we are seeing the temperature rise as the sea ice and glaciers retreat.