GLOBAL WARMING FAKE
Global warming has become
one of the central political and scientific issues of the future, but there is
not a scientific consensus on its long term effects. In fact, some circles do
not agree with the generalized conclusion that global warming is caused by
human intervention.
The correct prediction
of the climate change in the future has a high impact on aspects like
government planning, environmental regulation, social customs, and even the
geopolitical issues. These situations are more near of the reality in a
community, and they may affect the way that people live in future. It therefore
made no sense to think in high technology if the planet cannot support human
life.
Taking into account the
importance of accurate prediction it is also necessary to evaluate the real
global warming causes, and avoid that political or private economic interests deflect
public attention.
The first argument
against global warning caused by human intervention is that forecast models
have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission
scenarios. Furthermore, predictions as tropical troposphere temperature
increment has not been observed in the last 30 years. As a result, if models
are not reliable, conclusions are invalid or at least incorrect.
The second argument is
associated with the ice melted rate; uses data linked to artic ice tracks acquired
by Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) program to prove that the ice cover
was similarly reduced in the 1950s, when the Atlantic was last in a similar
warm mode. In the same way, sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century
and have declined in the last few years
Finally, local effects attributed
to global warming can be associated with other phenomenon, which explains
better the data. For example, Mount Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to land use,
and deforestation according to the last data.
Alarmist had predicted
a permanent El Niño phenomenon, and drier summers in Northern hemisphere.
However, the last decade has featured, 7 “Niña” and just 3 “Niño” years.
In conclusion, a model
that cannot give exact predictions should have to be evaluated with care, and
not to believe without all the evidence.
Maria Cristina
Henao Ruíz
No comments:
Post a Comment