What if all leaders and nations had proves climate cheanges because of human emissions of CO2?
We all know that climate is changing. The “game” between environmentalists and world leaders under the pressure of multinational companies regards the causes that have produced and that are accelerating these changes. In other words, global warming is a phenomenon the origins of which are anthropogenic, that is caused by man?
Nobody talks about that, but there is a scientific evidence that global warming is caused by an unnatural desire to produce (and sell) more and more: the proof of this relationship dates back to 40 years ago. A group of scientists of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States led by meteorologist Jule Gregory demonstrated that the average temperature of the planet would be increased, and why (and much more accurate of what is said during such historical events as the meetings of the Kyoto or the COP21, Paris): 40 years ago, at the end of July 1979, researchers published a report in which it was highlighted the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.
The results which were arrived were so devastating that researchers scurried to communicate tothe White House, even before that to the media.
Strangely, no one, neither the White House nor other branches of the government, said anything about the the study received. They simply forgotten it. It was a period of “hot” news: Russia had invaded Afghanistan; in Italy, only a few years before, the referendum on abortion had marked a moment in history and, just a year before, in 1978, was kidnapped Aldo Moro, and soon after, in 1980, it came to pass in the disaster of Ustica, who triggered controversy in the international is not just with France, the USA and Libya; in Spain, had just been launched to the Constitution. The whole of the international policy was focused on a series of events that had blinded the heads of state and had permitted, perhaps, to realize that they were in the act changes that would have changed the planet in a few decades. Even in the USA, the government preferred to look the alrta part: the rest had just been re-established diplomatic relations with China, was launched as the first revolutionary Shuttle and Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev had signed the agreements SALT II.
May be it was this the reason whay no one took the trouble to investigate the consequences of the thesis of a group of american researchers.
Later, in 2005, other scientists confirmed the accuracy of the forecasts reported in 1979: basing on three of the most large set of satellite data used by climate scientists over the past 40 years, results reached the ”gold standard” of certainty (the third had him in 2016). The forecasts reported in the study of the seventies were so precise that, thirty years later, in 2009, Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of geosciences at the university of Chicago, was obliged to acknowledge that “nothing of all the knowledge achieved in recent decades has been able to contradict the conclusions of the report, Charney”.
(A sign that even then someone had tried to contradict that, which was not a theory but a thesis demonstrated, but without success).
This means that, already in 1979, scientists had demonstrated the impact of humanity on climate changes. But it also means another thing, far more relevant: that world leaders, who knew it, decided not to do anything. And they ketp doing (or better not douing) for forty years.
For all this decads research Charney ended up in oblivion. But the report had too much weight to remain hidden: the Charney report explained that “some changes in the composition of the atmosphere can change its ability to absorb the energy of the Sun”. If world leaders had devoted the attention they deserved to that research and if they had acted immediately, today the world would not find itself managing an emergency of epochal dimensions.
Why didn’t they do anything? Yet the document in the hands of world leaders was clear: “We have irrefutable proof that the atmosphere is changing and that man is contributing to this process. The concentrations of carbon dioxide are constantly increasing, which is linked to the combustion of fossil resources and the exploitation of the soil. Since CO2 plays a significant role in the thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere, it is reasonable to assume that its increase will have consequences on the climate ”. What consequences? Also in this respect the researchers, in 1979, had provided extremely precise data: Carl Wunsch, one of the authors of the Charney report, demonstrated the thesis of global warming of anthropic origin does not require complex calculations and models and predicted that a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have led to an increase in the average global temperature of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, due to the different scenarios considered. Exactly what has occurred in recent years!
World leaders gathered in Paris come to mind at the end of the COP21 work. All smiling, between a dinner and a group photo, while presenting the “new” plan to contain the increase in global temperatures and save the world (a plan to be implemented who knows when, especially after Trump’s decision to pull back).
Instead, all of them already knew the causes and the extent of rising global temperatures very well. And not for a short time, for decades. “The main findings of the report have aged very well,” said Mark Zelinka, a climate scientist at LLNL, who also coauthored the document. “The story that scientists don’t know the cause of climate change is wrong,” Benjamin Santer, lead author of the study, “We know it” told Reuters.
As Pierrehumbert pointed out: “Political decision makers have not taken these forecasts into account and have not acted preventively”. Indeed, even today they pretend not to know with certainty the relationship of cause and effect between the increase of CO2 emissions, increase in global temperatures and climate change!
The point is that, after reading the report, and especially after seeing that the predictions of scientists have already become reality, their choices can no longer be hidden behind a sort of poor knowledge. Or of ignorance. There is no doubt that those who have governed in recent decades have not considered the common good or the preservation of the planet as primary: they have ruled with only the economic advantages of a few at heart. Now, forty years after the publication of the Charney Report, he can no longer deny it.