The NASA article (not the study itself) is stressing the sulphate aerosols (which block the sunlight, therefore, cooling the air around them) too much to give the reader the impression that the planet is cooling. But we know better that the ice is melting (the ice does not melt if the temperature is cooling!).

NASA is a government agency and follows directions from the new administration in the USA. Therefore, it wants the reader to become skeptical and doubt global warming.

In the meantime the rest of us have to cope with the weather extremes that global warming is bringing us daily. Some will not survive such extremes and if we don't smarten up and slow down the pollution from fossil fuels we will pay a bigger price - even with our lives.

As I write this a monstrous storm is bringing torrential rain and deadly wind in my area. Such events were extremely rare before, now have become commonplace.

yes it is

Dear Kumar Anand, realy I agree with you. But refer to the first link above by NASA/ USA .And then tell me is it right? 

The NASA article (not the study itself) is stressing the sulphate aerosols (which block the sunlight, therefore, cooling the air around them) too much to give the reader the impression that the planet is cooling. But we know better that the ice is melting (the ice does not melt if the temperature is cooling!).

NASA is a government agency and follows directions from the new administration in the USA. Therefore, it wants the reader to become skeptical and doubt global warming.

In the meantime the rest of us have to cope with the weather extremes that global warming is bringing us daily. Some will not survive such extremes and if we don't smarten up and slow down the pollution from fossil fuels we will pay a bigger price - even with our lives.

As I write this a monstrous storm is bringing torrential rain and deadly wind in my area. Such events were extremely rare before, now have become commonplace.

On page 5 of the report "Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers Chapter" [based on the reports of the three Working Groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and available at the link below] I find the following explanation, which confirms the relationship between global warming and fossil fuel burning:

Total anthropogenic GHG emissions have continued to increase over 1970 to 2010 with larger absolute increases between 2000 and 2010, despite a growing number of climate change mitigation policies. Anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2010 have reached 49 ± 4.5 GtCO2-eq/yr. Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010, with a similar percentage contribution for the increase during the period 2000 to 2010 (high confidence) (Figure SPM.2). Globally, economic and population growth continued to be the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. The contribution of population growth between 2000 and 2010 remained roughly identical to the previous three decades, while the contribution of economic growth has risen sharply. Increased use of coal has reversed the long-standing trend of gradual decarbonization (i.e., reducing the carbon intensity of energy) of the world’s energy supply (high confidence). {1.2.2}

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s. {1.3, Figure 1.10}

http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

I raise the hat to you dear Michael Isignosis. Really I appreciate your faithful answer.Best regards 

Both economics and climate prediction have to evolve to science standards. Right now, they are dabbling in politics. One can imagine a scientific paper entitled: "Climate Change Shock". Is that about climate ? Is that about supersonic flows ? Is that just a tautology, "climate change" ? Is that about psychology/anthropology, "change shock" ? [Well deserved] ridicule aside, there are other significant factors impacting the climate that are kept quiet, e.g. the huge quantity of phosphates released in the Gulf of Mexico by we know who [primary carried by the Mississippi], the Deep Horizon catastrophe, the active bottom of the Atlantic [and all the active underwater fault lines], the huge forest fires, El Nino/Nina, hurricane activity, solar activity. There are so many "perturbations" impeding the scientific success of such magnificent C)2 model, I just wonder when all these "perturbation" will stop acting and let the field to CO2.

I just completed the following simple exercise: the global energy production from thermal sources (fossil+nuclear) is 120,000 TWh/year. This translates into 1.7e18 kJ heat dumped to atmosphere, assuming a reasonable 25% thermal conversion efficiency. At 10,333 kg air/m^2 of Earth and 510 million km^2 Earth surface area, there is some 5.27e18 kg air in the atmosphere. So, the heat dumped for cooling the industry can raise the earth atmosphere by 0.33 deg C/year or 33 deg C per century. Is that a "negligible" perturbation for climate scientologists ? Isn't there some natural process to compensate the potential 33 deg C increase from 1900 until today ? Wouldn't that process challenge the CO2 contribution ?

I am pretty sure , the answer is YES !!!!!!

e.g: Especially in winter , I see that cars/buses etc as they drive the carbon residue on the snow covered roads are so scary , snow looks black ...

Other e.gs: drought / wild fires (due heat)

Fossil fuel is so limited and to make it , earth has taken thousands of years and we made it last only few 100s . Before it is too late I guess we have realized the impact , yet it is irreversible (by us for sure)

Dear Aparna Sathya Murthy, surely I agree with you. But scientific facts documented by articles are better than what our eyes see. And the literature is full of statistical studies related to fossil fuel and green house gases GHG, especially CO2 . Best regards. 

One has to worry when "scientific facts" documented by articles result in conclusion such as "ethanol is a green fuel" and the Australian cattle farmers installing catalytic converters at the cow "exhaust". Ethanol production, before combustion, generates more CO2 than pure and simple combusting the raw fossil fuel for the same job. Electric cars generate more CO2 than gasoline cars, if the electrical power is not generated from renewable sources. Currently, less than 9% of the power consumption is supplied by renewable, 7% of renewable is sourced in hydropower, e.g. the "ecological disaster" of Assuan dam and Three-Gorges. So what's left ? Photo-voltaic ? At 20% conversion efficiency and 4 hrs/day average it would require just 0.1% of the Earth surface or 410,000 km^2 or 100 million acres. It would cost about 205 trillion dollars or 30,000 dollars/capita, including children (well fed and less well fed). SiO2 against CO2.

Dear colleagues, this article is one of the references in the main project. It bears valuable scientific facts: -

Greenhouse gases increase in proportion to fossil fuel consumption!

The Earth maintains a constant ambient temperature by releasing the heat from its surface (infrared ray) through the atmosphere into space. However, as a result of industrialization, if heat-absorbing gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs), continue to increase, it is widely thought that the temperature in the atmosphere will rise, causing a greenhouse effect. Global warming is a focus of great concern because of its potentially huge adverse impact on humankind and the environment, including the disruption of ecosystems and inundation of coastal areas because of rising sea levels...

Atmospheric CO2 concentration started to increase at the time of the Industrial Revolution and has been increasing rapidly since 1900. This increase is in proportion to the usage of fossil fuels. Therefore, reducing consumption of fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions has become a crucial countermeasure for global warming. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and various other international activities to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases are underway. 

In 2008, 10 years after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, Japan's total greenhouse gas emissions amounted to 1,286 million tonnes, of which over 90% was CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. CO2 emissions in 2008 were 6.2% lower than the figure for 2007, partly owing to the global financial crisis, but 1.9% higher than the figure for the base year specified by the Kyoto Protocol (1990 for CO2)...

https://www.mhi.com/discover/earth/issue/history/history.html

Dear @Nabeel, the conference paper that you have contributed has the same conclusion: " GHG emissions increase global warming which causes global climate change. So that all the nations should take immediate steps for reducing GHG emissions efficiently. The USA and China and some other industrialize countries must reduce GHG emissions for the sustainable development of global humanity..."

See the attached reference!

http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/fossil-fuels/

A powerful illustration with a clear boundary conditions dear Ljubomir Jacic, but I think  that the greedy  human being will never stop this crisis . Best regards. 

I am sure we must fight to stop polluting the world. But I am not sure about the role played by CO2. Like hen and egg, no one can prove whether the global temperature has raised because CO2 concentration increased or whether CO2 concentration has increased because global temperature raised, and both are much plausible!!!

Dr Alastair Bain McDonald, I´d like to say that science is to be proved not to be accepted, and so as long as some of us are not convinced science must prove we are wrong. This did not happen yet. Despite of all you wrote, During Cretaceous time there was 5 x more CO2 in the air than there is nowadays after burning all fossil fuels. This is a prove that CO2 also comes from the planet itself, because in cretaceous there was no man burning fossil fuels. Besides this, geology proves there were more than hundreds of global heatings followed by gacial periods and again and again.

So, I think we have a reasonable doubt, don´t you think so?

Dr Nizar Matar, ·you say that "the rise in temperature over the last years has been attributed to greenhouse gases which include carbon dioxide" but the ones who say that only say it is a possibility because there are other possibilities like the Pole Current, sun activity, change of the Earth´s magnetic field, vocanos activity (almost 4 thousend active nowadays) and so on. Ad I quetion myself if the planet could deal with the 50 times bigger cretaceous CO2 concentration why can´t it deal with the concentration we have now? I am 53 and I have already seen many periods of 2 or 3 years without summer followed by a period without winter and untill now I don´t see any difference in the climate. But I am only a half century observer.

Dr Abdullah Ashraf, I cannot agree with you as long as We don´t know what can be the consequences after a global warming (if it is going to happen). I am also afraid that the end of the world may delay to much and I am impatient. But in any case, my doubt reffers to the fact that everybody is ivesting time and money to study the effects of a global heating. What happens if insted of a global heating a global glaciation is coming???

DR Paul Milham, thanks for the advice to read the IPCC documents. In fact, I already did and I was very frustrated after reading them. It does not look very much as a scientific work because it does´t consider many factors, for instance, the geological phenomena as a cause of global climate changes.

First of all, IPCC started with the 2007 Report which was constructed on a fraude that came to light in 2010 when UN`s general secretary went to the midia and apologized for that. Since then, I am veru suspicious with what IPCC presents.

Dr Roberto Bencini, thanks for the information. Nevertheless, I am still in doubt. All you say may be right, but all you say is also possible if you consider CO2 concentration increase a result of global warming and not a cause.

I am working in a paper in which we calculated that it is not possible that human burning/emissions led to a 300-400 ppm of CO2 concentration in the air.

About C13, once more comes the question, who came first, hen or egg? Remembering that remains un explained why C13 incresead to the more or less actual value of 1% (c13/C12) in Permian times ( +- 250 M.A.) Look, you yourself says that fossil fuels are poor in C13 ("reflect on the fact that fossil fuels are relatively poor in 13C, a stable isotope of Carbon"). That occurs exactly because plants (and animals secondarily) absorbs proportionally more C12 than C13. This induces its concentration increase in the air. So, fossil fuels burning would decrease its relative concentration in the air. It is a fact. Now thinking of CO2 sequestration, if C13 is more concentrated in the air, it is also  a fact that it is going to precipitate more C13 enriched CO3- (carbonte). And carbonates cover around 60% of the Earth´s crust. And carbonate, opposite to the majority of the chemical substances, tends to increase its preciptation when temperature increases. It is a geochemical indicator of hot temperature. So, if the planet is warmer now it certainly is precipitating C13-rich carbonates all over the planet`s lakes and oceans, and consequently ,precipitating C13 robustly and consequently removing it from the air. So many questions like these are still without an answer. 

As you say, put all together and conclude that A) mankind is MAYBE emitting to the atmosphere CO2 from burning fossil fuels at a rate that exceeds the natural capacity of the planet to take it back, and that B) such excessive CO2 is likely to MAYBE cause severe climate changes (if no remedies are taken).

That´s what I think... by now...

"Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth's surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation.

 is possible that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will increase normally in the course of the next 50 million years to 1050 ppmV or 2500 ppmV."

 http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

"Abstract

Carbon-dioxide releases associated with a mid-Cretaceous super plume and the emplacement of the Ontong-Java Plateau have been suggested as a principal cause of the mid-Cretaceous global warming. We developed a carbonate-silicate cycle model to quantify the possible climatic effects of these CO2 releases, utilizing four different formulations for the rate of silicate-rock weathering as a function of atmospheric CO2. We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm. Based on the temperature sensitivity to CO2 increases used in the weathering-rate formulations, this would cause a global warming of from 2.8 to 7.7 degrees C over today's global mean temperature. Altered continental positions and higher sea level may have been contributed about 4.8 degrees C to mid-Cretaceous warming. Thus, the combined effects of paleogeographic changes and super-plume related CO2 emissions could be in the range of 7.6 to 12.5 degrees C, within the 6 to 14 degrees C range previously estimated for mid-Cretaceous warming. CO2 releases from oceanic plateaus alone are unlikely to have been directly responsible for more than 20% of the mid-Cretaceous increase in atmospheric CO2." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539811

also recommend http://palaeont.jlu.edu.cn/papers/ESR_Cretaceous_CO_2.pdf

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

By Katia Moskvitch, Live Science Contributor | March 24, 2014 05:15pm ET

https://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Do you really believe Global Heating is due to CO2 from.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_really_believe_Global_Heating_is_due_to_CO2_from_fossil_fuels_burning [accessed Aug 19, 2017].

That's it Jorge, I also hate pollution, but I loved your answer.

That's (logical, geological) science. When we don't know all about, we have to discuss it, not just accept one or another thinking.

and if later on, we all discover that the Earth is going to a glacial period in the next 10 or 100 thousend years,

Will the humanity be able to warm up the Earth?

I don't think so.

Planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and in this long time there had been periods that were much, much warmer than it is today (e.g. during the time dinosaurs lived on our planet) and also periods that were far colder (ice ages). In other words: it would be strange when today's climate would be the same indefinately. This never has been the case. There were also periods when CO2 concnetration was much higher than today. Indeed there was a time when no O2 was in the atmosphere... Bacteria converted CO2 into O2. Climate change is something that bothers us, because we are effected, because we are there to be bothered. It does not effect Planet Earth in any meaningful way as the planet will be there even if Human aren't anymore (although also Planet Earth won't be eternal).

Among many other challenges the scientific mainstream believes that the generation of special gases through the burning of fossil fuels is the driving force for climate change. A few, however, see human contribution little in global warming and some even talk of global cooling. In RG there have been many contributions that put global warming and global cooling as two different processes. What is different is the outcome of very complex processes. The outcome is either warming or cooling, and to make it even more complex both can happen - in different places.... or at different times (a specific place can have warmer summers and colder winters as a resukt of change of the climate....,). How much of this change is contributed by human activies we can discuss and do research about, but it would be strange if only humans have contributed to these changes, or if these changes would be entirely caused by natural processes - both is very unlikely the case. Sometimes people think that IPCC does investigate into global warming, but indeed it looks into climate change. The expression global warming is out since many years as it is acknowldeged that it is much more than around temperature change. Global cooling, if it exists, is also climate change. In Germany we can have temperatures in winter of minus 20 degrees Celsius. That is winter and we call this winter weather. Some years winters are mild, other years very harsh, long and very cold. Weather and climate are different things, and the weather is never the same. It changes and also if the sun energy received on January 1 at a particular place would be the same every year (which is not the case as the sender (sun) sends not always the same) it still would result in different weather as the energy received is only one from many, many factors that makes the weather. In the discussion often people speak of a food crisis because of global warming. I doubt that this is the only possible interpretation. Today we produce considerable more food per capita than a few decades ago. When people are starving then it is usual because of the impacts of wars, civil wars, ethnic tensions, or just because of poverty, but not necessarily because of climate change, at least not so directly as often assumed. Here in the Pacific Island countries the talk of climate change and its impact on food security has been rather dominant, despite this part of the world does not know widespread undernutrition and when we look at malnutrition then we discover that the biggest concern is obesity, and when we would anlyze the causes then we would not find climate change, but MacDonalds and other fast food outlets. I think that a cooling effect (if it exists) due to reduced sun activity moderates anthropogenic warming impacts, the same other natural impacts on the climate would such as volcanic eruptions etc. We should realise that something as complex as climate has many contributing factors that lead to change. To assume that everything is caused by humans or everything by natural causes is far too simplistic. For that reason it is rather difficult to make any precise predictions of the future. So both (processes that contribute to warming and such contributing to cooling) not only can happen, but they do, and they always did. What now is sold as new ideas and change to previous scientific knowledge is actually nothing really new other than that one aspect from an extremely complex process is taken out and displayed as the whole truth.

Thanks a lot dear Eberhard Weber. Best regards.

An interesting account....Eberhard

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-causes/

Please, check out on TED Talks the presentation of Allan Savory "How to green the deserts...". It may be an important part of the truth. Simply put, agriculture may be the biggest factor controlled by humans, the CO2 unbalance being more an indicator than a major driver.

Michael

Your entry is a disgrace!

The conclusion of the study by NASA is that the cooling by sulphate was larger than thought and that the WARMING by the greenhouse gases was and is thus more: you have to read the full publication and understand it