Until the early seventies of the last century, science considered the problem of the coming global cooling. What should have happened so that, suddenly, as at the behest of an unknown conductor, science turned 180 degrees?
Real emissions of greenhouse gases in our country are annually 45 percent of the 1990 level. However, despite this, the UN claims that Ukraine ranks tenth in the list of countries - the most persistent air pollutants. Why's that?
In the coming decades, due to an increase in the temperature of the water environment of the Dniester, the oxygen content in it may decrease by 5-6 percent, which will lead to algal blooms, intensive growth of bacteria and fungi, negatively affect its quality, and, as an inevitable consequence, public health.
The “greenhouse effect” through human fault is nothing more than a successfully exploited cliché that has nothing to do with either science or climate change. On Mars, it periodically gets warmer and colder. And exactly at the same time as on Earth! These are the results of recent research by NASA. But on the Red Planet there are neither Martians, nor, moreover, factories, cars and other sources of "greenhouse gases".
Today the world is facing the most global challenge in its history. According to the well-established opinion, provided that the current level of human impact on the environment is preserved, large-scale cataclysms will await our planet in the next decade. A rise in the level of the world ocean, a change in the directions of the largest currents, desertification of the territories of entire countries, destructive floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.
One part of ecologists (there are more of them) cries out about the need for the most severe reduction of emissions to reduce the "greenhouse effect", the other (there are fewer of them) - argues that humans have no significant impact on climate change.
If we accept the latter point of view (and it, unlike the first, operates with strict scientific data), this will mean only one thing: someone ordered the screams of global warming through human fault. And this “someone” may well be US transnational corporations specializing both in the production of petroleum products and in the production of “environmentally friendly” equipment - from cars to washing machines, vacuum cleaners and computers.
To understand how true this is, puzzle yourself with one single question: which "product" of burning gasoline is more dangerous: the one that was produced by old equipment with cheap gasoline without additives, or now - with expensive gasoline, with a high octane rating, which emits good a dozen compounds of heavy metals and substances that easily fit into the classification of poisonous?
Twenty years ago, when all the world's "antediluvian technology" used the same cheap gasoline and "smoked" carbon dioxide as much as it wanted, our health was safer than now. A simple example: in our territory, cherries, apricots or pears growing along the tracks were quite healthy. Today they have become poisonous precisely for the reason that they grow along the highways, "fed" from cars rushing by, and doctors more and more strongly recommend travelers to abandon all attempts to enjoy the "free fruit".
Here is the answer to some nature of theories of "human intervention". True, here we are not talking about global warming, but about harm to living organisms, but the very fact of the "initial boundaries and long-term goals" of such theories is important to us. Moreover, when talking about global warming, one well-forgotten fact is very surprising: until the beginning of the seventies of the last century, science considered the opposite problem - the coming global cooling. What should have happened so that, suddenly, as at the behest of an unknown conductor, science turned 180 degrees (and this is exactly what happened in the scientific world of the United States), and the topic of cooling was buried in one day ?! Moreover, scientists who continued to defend the latter theory were forgotten.
But let's start in order. Global warming is an indisputable fact. Another thing is the reasons that cause it.
Predictions come true, but you need to know the reason
Probably, each of us at least once in our life heard about climate change caused by human activities. The topic, you see, is not new. In their predictions, scientists are not limited to information about the extinction and extinction of a number of species of flora and fauna. A number of regions of the planet in Asia are already unsuitable for life today due to desertification and the disappearance of water. European countries are increasingly faced with problems unusual for this part of the land - large-scale floods, drought, abnormally high and just as low temperatures.
It is no better in our region, in the Eastern European region, which is quite comfortable for life. Only in the previous five-year period (from 2001 to 2005) in Ukraine there were twice as many large-scale natural disasters as a whole decade earlier.
The tendency has become quite clear, but the matter did not go beyond the statement of this fact, although our country is actively involved in large international environmental projects. So, one of the most significant events was the signing by us of the so-called Kyoto Protocol, according to which developed countries and countries with economies in transition, in the period from 2008 to 2012, undertake to ensure a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin by at least 5 percent …
According to the data of the National Ecological Center of Ukraine, real greenhouse gas emissions in our country are annually about 45 percent of the 1990 level, which, as it were, testifies to the “cleanliness” of our production (it is clear that this production has simply not been there for a long time - author) … However, despite this, the UN claims that Ukraine ranks tenth in the list of countries - the most persistent air pollutants. Why's that?
It should be noted that it is greenhouse gases that are considered to be the main factor affecting the rise in temperature on the planet, and, as a consequence, changing the climate.
We note right away: this fact has not been proven by science, but this point of view is stubbornly adhered to by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in 2007 presented its research in this area to the world community
Promotional video:
The authors of the study found that over the past hundred years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has increased by 40 percent, which is the highest level in the last 650 thousand years (!). And the main reason for such a sharp rise in the level of carbon dioxide, they announced the burning of fossil fuels. They just announced that - that's all! They did not come up with any evidence to support such a conclusion, because there is no such evidence. In addition, they noted that more than 2.5 times, compared with the pre-industrial period, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere increased, which is allegedly associated with the extraction of minerals, as well as uncontrolled pollution of land and the World Ocean. And again, there is no evidence, although the growth of this indicator in just such a volume is easily correlated with the growth and intensification of agricultural production throughout the planet,which is what caused this effect.
The Dniester is getting warmer, this is an indisputable fact!
According to the data published in the "Fifth National Communication of Ukraine on Climate Change", in the next decade, the average annual temperature in our territory will rise insignificantly. Scientists from the Ukrainian Research Institute of Hydrometeorology have calculated that by 2020 the average annual temperature in the country will increase by no more than 1 degree. The long-term forecast looks more alarming, according to which by the middle of the 21st century the Black Sea region will become warmer by more than 2 degrees.
According to the doctor of geographical sciences, professor of the Chisinau Humanitarian Institute Roman Korobov, an increase in water temperature is expected in the main drinking artery - the Dniester. In the coming decades, the climate of the territory in the middle and lower reaches of the Dniester will become warmer and drier, with warm, humid winters and hotter, but dry summers, which, according to the expert, may lead to a shift in geographical zones.
An increase in water temperature will adversely affect its quality, and, as an inevitable consequence, on public health.
In particular, in terms of such an indicator as the volume of oxygen dissolved in water, which directly affects the process of self-purification of water bodies, the Dniester is already “on the brink”. In the coming decades, the oxygen content in water may decrease by 5-6 percent, which will lead to algal blooms, intensive growth of bacteria and fungi. This is an almost indisputable scientific fact.
Interestingly, information on water quality may eventually lose its relevance altogether for the simple reason that there will not be much to choose from. So, according to the representative of the international environmental organization "Black Sea Club" Svetlana Slesarenok, only in one summer of 2009 in the Odessa region dried up about 190 reservoirs.
As of 2009, 52 small rivers and more than half a thousand smaller reservoirs within our region are in a dry or partially dry state. As a result of a raid on the Kuchurgan River, carried out by environmental specialists who are part of a public organization, it was revealed that in the Frunzovsky district, out of 20 rates to date, exactly half has disappeared from the district map. The population has to deepen artesian wells, many of which still stop producing water. As for the Dniester, referring to the studies of the Odessa Ecological University, Svetlana Slesarenok emphasizes: by the middle of the century, the water content of the river may decrease by half.
It should be noted that along with the threat of desertification in the region, forecasts for a rise in the level of the World Ocean, and, as a consequence, of the Black Sea, are no less probable. Several years ago, the International Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conducted extensive research examining models of predicted climate change impacts in 136 port cities around the world. Odessa was also considered among them. Scientists from the OECD considered the most probable rise in the level of the Black Sea by at least half a meter by 2070. And although this process will be quite extended in time, hundreds of thousands of residents are still in a potential risk zone in Odessa alone.
Our "overheating" is due to heat residues …
Why, at the beginning of the article, did we react with sarcasm to the hype that environmentalists do not stop about filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin? Indeed, the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing, and the climate is changing!
Of course it is growing and, of course, it is changing. And the opinion that the planet is on the verge of significant climate change is reasonable. There is only one small "but" - scientists around the world are diametrically disagreeing about what caused these changes. And objective research data prove that nature is going through another natural cyclical transition through a short period of global warming to the era of global cooling and the products of human activity have absolutely nothing to do with this.
In this context, the entire global concern for reducing emissions is nothing more than someone's production order. But in view of the danger that really threatens humanity, playing such "games" is even more dangerous. If we do not stop putting on a show like "Kyoto misunderstandings", if we do not concentrate the world's scientific forces and resources on anticipating the consequences of global natural phenomena (which we cannot resist, but we can reduce the scale of humanitarian disasters), we will face global victims, which just might have been avoided.
According to the head of the Laboratory of Space Research at the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory Kh. Abdusamatov, the planet will not get warmer, but, on the contrary, will have a significant cooling. In his conclusions, the scientist is based on studies of the cyclicity of solar activity, according to which the Earth will cool down significantly until the middle of this century.
Kh. Abdusamatov believes that the Sun is "to blame" for everything (both in global warming and in the coming cold snap). He found that throughout the twentieth century, our star was shining brighter and brighter, and therefore the average temperature on Earth has risen by 0.6 degrees over 100 years (it is these data that are considered evidence of global warming). And in the early nineties the Sun stopped baking so zealously.
“We didn’t feel it because we continue to bask on the remnants of the heat that the planet has accumulated,” he says. - But stocks are not eternal. In a few years, the temperature will begin to drop. First of all, the ocean accumulates heat, and it also determines the climate on the planet. And oceanologists say: since 2003, the upper layers of the ocean have been steadily cooling.
The scientist is convinced that the greenhouse effect and the “human factor” that caused it are nothing more than a successfully exploited cliché that has nothing to do with either science or, moreover, with climate change. In support of his words, he cites data that it periodically warms and gets colder on Mars. And exactly at the same time as on Earth! These are the results of recent research by NASA. But on the Red Planet there are neither Martians, nor, moreover, factories, cars and other sources of "greenhouse gases". This means that the climate of both us and our neighbors is influenced exclusively by the Sun, and changes in its "mood".
Galileo and Bruno were condemned, but they were right!
Information about the melting of glaciers, "disruptions" in the nature of sea currents and in the behavior of many species of animals, apparently, made the hearts of not only ordinary inhabitants of our planet, but also those people on whose decisions the future of this world depend. It is not for nothing that for more than two decades, dozens of various declarations, treaties and agreements have been signed at the highest level aimed at preventing the onset of the "greenhouse effect". Today it is difficult even to imagine what amounts are being discussed when solving environmental problems. And we do not set ourselves the task of calculating these amounts. Let's just try to figure out whether there really is a threat that almost every one of us is trying to prevent, consciously or unconsciously.
Ten years ago, no one was so firmly convinced that the "greenhouse effect" is the main factor influencing the global warming process. Skeptics remain even now, but most scientists nevertheless admit that the average temperature is rising precisely due to the increase in the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is most convincingly evidenced by changes in the Arctic, where the increase in temperatures is maximum.
Nevertheless, on the issue of the nature of global warming, consensus is still very far away. A significant part of scientists are still convinced that warming is of anthropogenic nature, that is, it directly depends on human activities. There are fewer in the scientific world those who insist on the complete groundlessness of the theories defended by colleagues. And although the latter are in a decisive minority, their arguments and the scientific basis used in research are much more serious than those of their opponents.
It is interesting that the amount of information "for" and "against" the theory of global warming, which every minute gets into the world information space, is completely disproportionate. That is, the majority "crushes" here too. And this fact is one of the decisive ones in determining the course of research activities of young scientists and researchers who are just starting their scientific activities. They are pre-aligned with the anthropogenic factor, and even if studies of the influence of such a factor do not confirm, they simply go to juggle the data.
It is as difficult to doubt the "truthfulness" of the forecasts of the recognized "pillars" of climatology today, as it was in the Middle Ages for our ancestors to agree with the ideas of Galileo and Giordano Bruno. But the latter, as we know, were right!
It should be noted that all currently existing statements about climate change and their nature are only theory, since they cannot be confirmed in practice. Therefore, let's try to understand the abundance of data from both.
Greenland was "green", which is why it was called that.
Over the course of millions of years, the territory of our planet has repeatedly been covered with dense tropical vegetation, and giant glaciers and deserts. This is a scientific fact, which is confirmed by numerous studies in the field of geology, physics, climatology, paleogeography, archeology, biology and many other sciences. The same studies also tell us that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere at certain periods was hundreds of times higher than its current levels. And this happened, as you know, without human intervention.
The history of the last thousand years, closer to us, also testifies to at least two differing temperature periods. Thus, the average annual temperature on the planet at the beginning of the second millennium AD was significantly higher than at the end.
Historical chronicles show that a large area of Greenland in the 11-13th centuries was not covered with ice (which is why Norwegian sailors dubbed it "green land"). Then the Earth's climate became harsher, and Greenland was almost completely frozen over. In the XV-XVII centuries, severe winters reached their climax. This is eloquently evidenced by many historical chronicles, as well as works of art. For example, the famous painting by the Dutch artist Jan Van Goyen "Skaters" (1641) depicts mass ice skating along the canals of Amsterdam. Currently, the channels in Holland are not freezing. In medieval winters, even the Thames in England froze, and in the capital of Russia - Moscow - snow fell more than once in mid-July.
The last period of prolonged cooling ended in the middle of the 19th century, after which the temperature began to rise slowly again. Scientists also have data for a more familiar period from the end of the 19th to the end of the 20th centuries. According to the greenhouse effect theory, the main reason for the rise in temperature is carbon dioxide, the concentration of which is increasing in the atmosphere due to the growth of industrial emissions.
Undeniable? Seems to be yes. But here's the funny thing: it turns out that the warming on our planet began … long before the appearance of millions of cars, giant factories and nuclear power plants. Thus, the graph of temperature rise most confidently climbed up until 1940, when mankind did little to pollute the atmosphere. But after the Second World War, just during the period of the world industrial boom, the temperature dropped. Thus, these facts refute the theory of human influence on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.
Just take our word for it!
The former vice-president of the United States, Al Gore, thinks differently, who ten years ago, after his defeat in the struggle for the highest state post of the country, found another way not to lose popularity. Engaged in advocacy for reducing the anthropogenic impact on climate change, Mr. Gore has made it to the Nobel Peace Prize, which he was awarded in 2007 for his work in this area. He even conducted his own "research", the price of which, of course, is not high.
The documentary video with the ex-politician's speech has already been seen by tens of millions of people around the world. However, the "irrefutable" facts that Gore referred to do not withstand the slightest criticism of a common man in the street, not to mention people of science.
Complex graphs of the dependences between temperature and carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, which were shown to the viewer, were awarded with the speaker's remark that, they say, “it's too difficult to understand”, but, so to speak, “since we say, then we need to believe and if you believe us, you will understand everything. Indeed, the viewer and listener are unable to appreciate their confused speeches. But an insinuating voice caresses the ear, and stupidity is already perceived favorably, and the absence of logic and inconsistency passes by consciousness.
So, according to the graphs given in the report of Horus, in ancient times, continental glaciation did rapidly decrease due to an increase in the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide also increased. However, the increase in its concentration in the atmosphere occurred with a "delay" from the temperature rise by 800 years. Thus, Gore himself and his team prove that the increase in the volume of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a consequence of the increase in temperature, but not its cause.
How such a monstrous mistake could have been "overlooked", including in the Nobel Committee, is not a mystery: the theory of the "human nature" of global warming is a purely American business project, and the Nobel Committee, on which there is no place to put samples for a long time, is not bad on such projects earns. So they fool the public, so to speak, at the highest and most prestigious "scientific" level (which is, for example, the awarding of the Peace Prize to Barack Obama just for the intention to be a "good boy" - author).
Today, there are at least seven fundamental theories explaining the global warming. Among them are solar and volcanic activity, the influence of the World Ocean, changes in the Earth's orbit and axis, and, of course, man with his own "greenhouse effect". Moreover, it is the anthropogenic theory that has received colossal (in comparison with others) support in the world.
What is the reason? Could it be that this is the easiest way to create a problem so that all mankind begins to solve it, spending fabulous sums, ostensibly for their own salvation. This is a classic of American business projects. They are all built on this principle: first create a problem, then make money out of it under the guise of solving it.
(The ending follows)
