Labels

Honest debate on Global warming - Man made or Not ?? Ritesh Arya with Peter Clift

An honest debate on Global Warming - Peter Clift and Ritesh Arya on facebook (Enjoyed during Corona)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10219722698010872&set=a.1161528051296&type=3&theater
Debate is on
Priya Yadav, Sanjay Kumar and 2 others
27 comments
Like
CommentShare
Comments
  • Peter Clift As noted in your other piece. Publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper is something anyone can do and means nothing without proper testing. Of course cyclones, floods and tsunamis will continue but that is not the point. Tsunamis??? What have they to do with climate anyway? The issue is frequency and magnitude of temperature and rainfall events, not to mention the rising sea level.
    1
    Hide 22 replies
    • Ritesh Arya scientific journals are also not much different ...their data can also be made upside down... I think the best way to resolve is to have a debate based on geological facts not on fictions and assumptions... as has been done...about climate change
    • Ritesh Arya Tsunami are an integral part of climate change as are earthquakes on land
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes. That's not climate change
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya and what data are you presenting to demonstrate that climate change is not caused by human activity?
    • Ritesh Arya all erosional and weathering phenomenon is related to climate change that is climate change in totality.
    • Ritesh Arya My simple submission is can reducing CO2 levels to zero reduce warming ?
    • Ritesh Arya No because global warming and cooling are not governed by CO2 levels but like day and night controlled by Solar Cycles this is basic science
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya Zero CO2? Well obviously if you have less greenhouse CO2 then there would be less heating for a given amount of solar forcing. I see that you make a common logical error. Yes on long time scale solar forcing, modulated by Milankovich cycles controls climate but as I noted this would put us into a cooling regime at the moment which we don't see. Normally warming of the Earth because of these orbital cycles would cause more CO2 to be emitted, acting a positive feedback but that is not the present situation. We are in a strange state of reducing solar insolation and increasing CO2 while the planet gets warmer. The CO2 effect is greater than the falling insolation effect. The CO2 is not following the natural cycle because it is partly anthropogenic in origin. This also is basic science.
    • Ritesh Arya you are speaking the truth but in the end you just want to give it to man .....without reasoning ....CO2 levels by man have effect on POLLUTION levels but not on climate ....this is the truth
    • Ritesh Arya rest all implications on man made global warming are just arbitrary imaginations
    • Ritesh Arya So if we can differentiate this thin boundary and do not jump into conclusions like 97% are doing ...we will have logical answers
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya now you are just guessing, or do you have a reviewed budget that would prove that? Why do you say “without reasoning”? I just explained the reasoning
    • Ritesh Arya You are saying "We are in a strange state of reducing solar insolation and increasing CO2 while the planet gets warmer. The CO2 effect is greater than the falling insolation effect. The CO2 is not following the natural cycle because it is partly anthropogenic in origin. This also is basic science". This is just your assumptions what is the basis of this .... We all know with warming CO2 increases proportionately and when cooling will start CO2 levels naturally goes down. But even if man contributes to CO2 emissions they will be negligible and cooling is inevitable
    • Ritesh Arya Just talking about CO2 emissions and trying to prepare a model based on this is totally wrong and I do not advocate these CO2 correlations linking them to global warming
    • Ritesh Arya In fact we should not be debating on the CO2 levels at all and isolating it for warming is the biggest mistake
    • Ritesh Arya Climate change is beyond CO2 and green house gases which are infact linked with pollution and has nothing to do with climate change
    • Ritesh Arya what is the data of CO2 levels records these 97% are trying to base their theories on... which can be substantiated by other findings,,,
    • Ritesh Arya I think IPCC is also confused about CO2 emmsions now and the scientists are doubting why they chose CO2 as an indicator for climate change
    • Ritesh Arya CO2 is our friend helping to make the planet greener but becuase of these 97% ???? scientists as per your data are unnecessary trying to jump to conclusions. And trying to link increased CO2 levels with man-made global warming. I think they are totally lost in their approach in understanding the basis of climate change which is beyond green house gases.
    • Ritesh Arya By lightling a bulb in the night some start believing that they have created the impact of sun .....but they forget they have just created light and sun impact is entirely different. Similarly by polluting the environment some scientist feel they have …See more
    • Ritesh Arya this is the simple truth about climate change
    • Ritesh Arya all others are just assumptions without any scientific evidence
    Write a reply...

  • Harsimrat Brar In a little over 30 days mother earth has told us what it can do to repair itself, if only we humans do not interfere. Yee, earth has its own cycle of ice ages and meltdowns, but our intervention has hastened the meltdowns.
  • Ritesh Arya Yes it has but it does not mean that man has capacity to change climate cycles
    If we understand this basic difference then we can respect global warming and cooling better
    And also understand what man is capable of doing
    Mixing the 2 creates problem and confusion




















==========================================
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10219722691290704&id=1620678286&comment_id=10219735590533177&reply_comment_id=10219741207833606&notif_id=1588078886869976&notif_t=comment_mention
27 comments
Like
Comment
Share
Comments
  • Peter Clift When you write this up and get it through peer review then perhaps it might be seriously considered. Anyone can write a piece for a newspaper. No one doubts that climate change can occur naturally, such as the weakening of the monsoon after 4000 years ago that eliminated the Ghaggar-Hakra (Saraswati) but that is not what people are talking about when referring to recent anthropogenic driven climate change. The fact that people didn't cause the drying at 4 ka doesn't mean that they aren't causing the more recent warming. This is a poor line of logical reasoning
  • Ritesh Arya The fact is climate change is happening naturally ....No one doubts that give me one scientific evidence based on facts and supported by data on the ground and not based on assumptions that man has caused global warming... By propagating Man-made globa…See more
    • Peter Clift Most longer trends in climate are driven by solar insolation. After the maximum we usually see a trend to cooling again, as shown in the ice cores from Greenland for example or oxygen isotopes in marine cores. We reached that peak around 9000 years ago. Now we see a sharp increase in temperature coinciding with increasing CO2 that is clearly related to fossil fuel consumption. The CO2 is not a natural cycle. The warming is the opposite of the expected natural cycle.
    • Ritesh Arya CO2 has nothing to do with Climate Change...this is the biggest Myth
    Write a reply...

  • Ritesh Arya Saraswati never dried for want of rainwater from the monsoon
    Hide 13 replies
    • Peter Clift If you mean Ghaggar-Hakra when you say Saraswati then we know that it ceased flowing as the climate dried in the mid Holocene
    • Ritesh Arya i think there is some confusion,,, the reason of dried climate had no role to play in Saraswati drying there are established reports why it dried
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya and what are those reports? I can share the climate records with you. Do you thinking it’s just a coincidence that the river dried up as the monsoon weakened? Rivers do need rain after all
    • Ritesh Arya Peter Clift No they donot need
    • Ritesh Arya are those reports published in reviewed journals
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya Such as what? I asked you for the source of your information or are you just making stuff up you would like to believe? If not climate change then why would a river dry up? and no its not headwater capture
    • Peter Clift the reference for the drainage capture is - Clift, P.D., Carter, A., Giosan, L., Durcan, J., Tabrez, A.R., Alizai, A., Van Laningham, S., Duller, G.A.T., Macklin, M.G., Fuller, D.Q., Danish, M., 2012. U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and Capture of the Yamuna River. Geology, 40(3): 212-215. doi:10.1130/G32840.1.
    • Ritesh Arya Peter Clift I think you need to understand the basic thing about Himalayan rivers is they are not dependent on Rain
    • Ritesh Arya If you understand this then you will never again quote your above paper
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya While there is no doubt that melt water is an important source of supply to the rivers of the Himalaya, and especially the Indus, the fact remains that more than half the discharge comes from the summer monsoon rains. If the monsoon weakens then the discharge reduces unless this was made up for by faster melting. Temperatures have been pretty steady state in the last few thousand years while the changes in precipitation have been documented. The Ghaggar-Hakra is especially vulnerable to the monsoon because it drains the Lesser and Sub-Himalaya only and not the glaciated ranges anyway. I repeat my question. If it was not reducing rainfall that dried the Saraswati then what did? See - Boral, S., Sen, I.S., 2020. Tracing ‘Third Pole’ ice meltwater contribution to the Himalayan rivers using oxygen and hydrogen isotopes. Geochemical Perspectives Letters, 13: 48-53. doi:10.7185/geochemlet.2013.
      No photo description available.
    • Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS-Dr. Ritesh Arya
      YOUTUBE.COM
      Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED…
      Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS-Dr. Ritesh Arya
    • Ritesh Arya When we talk of river discharge for planning we study lean period discharge
    • Ritesh Arya That is important
    Write a reply...

  • Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS-Dr. Ritesh Arya
    YOUTUBE.COM
    Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS-Dr. Ritesh Arya
    Saraswati Civilization: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS-Dr. Ritesh Arya
  • Ritesh Arya I hope this will clear your doubts
  • Ritesh Arya Saraswati could not have depend upon rainfall for its survival
  • Ritesh Arya the whole idea of linking rainfall to Saraswati drying up is based on assumptions and not on groundfacts and we do not accept them
    • Peter Clift Then tell me where the water is coming from. Not the glaciers in the case of the Ghaggar Hakra because the glacier fed-rivers had already moved to other courses before the end of flow. Even if they were connected how would get the Saraswati to stop flowing? Freeze more water in the glaciers? There is no evidence for glacial advance in the Mid Holocene that I am aware of
    • Ritesh Arya Peter Clift please try to see the video you will get answers
    • Peter Clift Ritesh Arya I watched the video. I could only digest the slides. My response is that the Ghaggar-Hakra drains the Lesser and Sub-Himalaya which were not glaciated at the LGM. The glaciers of the western Himalayas didn't extend much further than they do today (see for example Owen et al., 1997; Owen, 2009), certainly not over the Lesser Himalaya, unless you can provide me with a reference I am not aware oif. The Ghaggar-Hakra river hasn't been connected to a glaciated headwater since 10,000 year ago or probably much longer ago. The connection to the Yamuna was lost likely before 20 ka, quite possibly because of tectonics. The Sutlej has been its present location since no later than 10 ka. The Bandarpunch glacier feeds the Ganga, not the Ghaggar-Hakra. Your melting glacier hypothesis lacks a glacier source, lasting until ~4 ka
    • Ritesh Arya Peter Clift your concept is totally in air and all the works including yours are conceptually not correct and are based on very lame arguments which I will never be able to digest. I am sure your arguments are based on hypothetical imagination and not on the ground realities because if you happen to be in the Lesser Himalayas there are ample pieces of evidence of massive glaciated valleys .....I am sorry you missed those ...
    • Ritesh Arya May be after lockdown of CORONA is over I will upload some good videos of the glaciated sequence

====================================================================


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment