What caused global warming. Global warming - myths, misconceptions, facts and what climate warming can threaten

Global warming is a trend increase in the average temperature on Earth over the past 100 years. It is calculated using data from weather stations around the world; in Europe, such stations have existed for about 150 years. But for the whole world, we have data for the last 100 years, and this calculation shows that the temperature is rising, and rising in a trend manner, that is, it is a significant trend, and not just fluctuations around some long-term average temperature value.

At the same time, it should be noted that this temperature does not rise smoothly, but grows in so-called “steps” and sometimes reaches a “plateau”. Let's say that in the last 30 years there has been a very noticeable increase in temperature, a particularly strong rise occurred in the 90s, and since 2000 this process has slowed down. This has happened before, that is, we can say that the temperature is rising in “steps.”

Ultimately, temperatures have risen 0.86 degrees since 1905, which is a significant change.

Causes of global warming

Today, the dominant theory in the world is that the main cause of global warming is greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, there is an unprecedented consensus in the scientific community: 97% of publications on the topic of climate change supported the theory that global warming is associated with greenhouse gas emissions, primarily CO2, from industry. In principle, CO2 emissions are small compared to emissions from natural sources. Since land and ocean are suppliers of carbon dioxide, but at the same time they also absorb it: in the ocean this is done by plankton, and on land by plants. If we sum up these flows, then the greenhouse gas flows from fuel combustion are very small compared to natural flows, they constitute approximately 4–5% of natural flows.

So the mystery is: Why can't this 4-5% of "extra" CO2 be absorbed by vegetation or the ocean? Moreover, under experimental conditions, a fertilization effect is observed due to the increased content of carbon dioxide: if you cover the plant with a cap and start pumping CO2 into it, the plant will begin to grow faster. An experiment was also carried out on a wheat field: CO2 was supplied to part of the field from a special hose, and in this place the wheat grew faster. But under natural conditions, such a fertilization effect is not observed; instead, anthropogenic CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, which for some reason is not absorbed by vegetation.

The simplest proof that it is gas from industrial emissions that accumulates in the atmosphere is the following: if you look at which hemisphere CO2 accumulation occurs, it immediately becomes clear that it occurs in the Northern Hemisphere, which is much more industrialized. Of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, 35% remains forever in the atmosphere - this is the increase in CO2 that causes an additional greenhouse effect.

At the same time, it cannot be said that the greenhouse effect is solely due to CO2: there are a number of other greenhouse gases, the most common of which is water vapor. The heating of the Earth due to the greenhouse effect is estimated at 33 degrees. If the greenhouse effect did not exist, then we would have the same temperature balance as on the Moon, that is, the average temperature would be −18 degrees, and now it is +15, and this difference is 33 degrees. Of these 33 degrees, we can attribute 30 degrees to water vapor and only 3 degrees to all other greenhouse gases, including artificial substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons, which are contained in refrigeration units. Why do people talk about CO2 the most? The fact is that CO2 is a gas that is directly related to anthropogenic activities. In addition to it, there is, for example, methane, which is relevant for our country - a large amount of methane can appear in the permafrost zone, which can also make a significant contribution to global warming. But currently it is CO2 that is the focus of scientists' attention.

The danger of global warming

First of all, you need to calculate how much the Earth will eventually warm up. At the same time, we must understand that we are all adapted to existing climatic conditions. Of course, they vary from year to year, but in general a lot depends on the existing atmospheric circulation system. As an example: our country is characterized by great seasonality - snow accumulates in winter, followed by spring floods, and then summer comes. But in recent years we have seen a tendency that snow cover does not accumulate, because too often there is a thaw in winter, and there is no peak flood. But at the same time, all our reservoirs are adapted to the conditions that existed previously, that is, in the spring they receive insufficient water, and for the second year in a row there was not enough water in the Volga basin. But you can adapt to these things.

On the other hand, there are calculations that the problem may be much more serious, because we live in a certain air circulation system - for our latitudes this is, for example, westerly transport from the Atlantic, and in addition, there is a Siberian anticyclone. But if the heating of the Earth continues, then the air circulation system itself may change, and some signs of this are already noticeable. In Europe, winters are already becoming unpredictable: it suddenly starts snowing for several days in a row, and airports simply cannot cope with the snowfall. This is primarily due to the weakening of the western transport. At the same time, it is worth taking into account many other factors, for example, the melting of ice in the Arctic - they become annual rather than perennial, as a result a heat pole is created, because the water is warmer than ice, and such things immediately affect air circulation - rapid weather changes occur. And such a restructuring of the system can be very dangerous and will require a restructuring of the entire industry and beyond. In any case, great challenges will await us.

Methods to combat global warming

Two main methods of combating global warming are proposed: radical reductions in atmospheric emissions and geoengineering methods. Today, it is completely unclear what is more feasible to do: reduce emissions or accelerate the development of bioengineering methods, although at the moment there is not a single successful method of using them. At the same time, the path of radical emissions reduction has already proven to be unrealistic.

The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, was based on various scenarios. But at the moment we have already exceeded the most pessimistic of the proposed scenarios. This is primarily due to the accelerated development of third world countries and, above all, China. If in the 1990s the economic development of the PRC followed the Kyoto Protocol scenario, then in the 2000s the pace of China's economic development increased sharply. China needed additional energy resources, which they could only find in their own coal. And coal is the largest supplier of CO2 per unit of production, which is why we could not stay within the given scenarios. Now that the Kyoto Protocol has failed, we are at a loss: it turns out that we cannot agree among ourselves. At the moment, instead of the Kyoto Protocol, there is only the Copenhagen Accord, that is, voluntary obligations of countries to control emissions, but this document has not even been adopted at the official level, and even if these obligations are observed, this still will not fundamentally change the situation.

The second way is bioengineering methods. One of these methods is to inject CO2 into mines. Such installations are already being created, but none of them have worked yet. In 2009, another experiment was carried out - an attempt was made to increase the bioproductivity of the ocean so that phytoplankton absorbed “extra” carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. An area in the ocean with reduced productivity due to a deficiency of dissolved iron was found, where the experiment was carried out. However, it failed: after dissolved iron was added, rapid development of phytoplankton began; According to scientists' calculations, the plankton should have sunk to the bottom, but this did not happen; instead, it went along the food chain, and the effect was zero. There are also exotic methods, for example, increasing the reflectivity of the stratosphere using special aerosols.

Possible scenarios for the development of global warming

Calculations of temperature increases are ongoing until the end of this century. The closest threshold is exceeding 450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. At the moment, the CO2 concentration is about 400 parts per million (this figure was first recorded in February 2015). At 450 million we will have a temperature threshold exceeding 2 degrees. It is believed that until this moment we live in the familiar world, after which a change in the circulation system will begin. This is expected to happen in 2040, and by 2100 there could be an excess of 4 or 5 degrees, effectively changing the entire Earth's climate system. During the Ice Age, the average temperature was +11 degrees, today it is +15, that is, the difference is only 4 degrees. This means that if we “warm up” by 4 degrees, this could mean a restructuring of the atmospheric circulation system, a change in the entire biosphere of the Earth, which, naturally, will lead to unpredictable political and economic changes around the world.

Global warming was once a fancy term used by scientists who were increasingly concerned about the effects of pollution on long-term weather patterns. Today, the idea of global warming on earth is well known, but not entirely understood.
It's not unusual for someone to complain about a hot day and remark, “It's global warming.”

Well, is that so? In this article we will learn what global warming is, what causes it, what the current and possible future consequences are. While there is a scientific consensus on global warming, some aren't sure it's something we need to worry about.

We'll look at some of the proposed changes being made by scientists related to curbing global warming and the criticisms and concerns surrounding it.

Global warming is a significant increase in the temperature of the Earth over a relatively short period of time as a result of human activities.

In particular, an increase of 1 or more degrees Celsius over a period of one hundred to two hundred years will be considered as global warming of the Earth. Over the course of one century, an increase of even 0.4 degrees Celsius would be significant.

To understand what this means, let's start by looking at the difference between weather and climate.

What is weather and climate

The weather is local and short-term. If snow falls in the city where you live next Tuesday, it's the weather.

Climate is long-term and does not apply to one small location. The climate of an area is the average weather conditions in a region over a long period of time.

If the part you live in has cold winters with a lot of snow, that's the climate for the region you live in. We know, for example, that in some areas the winters were cold and snowy, so we know what to expect.

It's important to understand that when we talk about long-term climate, we really mean long-term. Even a few hundred years is pretty short term when it comes to climate. In fact, sometimes it takes tens of thousands of years. This means that if you are lucky enough to have a winter that is not as cold as usual, with little snow, or even two or three such winters in a row, it is not climate change. It is simply an anomaly—an event that falls outside the normal statistical range but does not represent any consistent long-term change.

Facts about global warming

It is also important to understand and know the facts about global warming as even small changes in climate can have serious consequences.

When scientists talk about the “Ice Age,” you probably imagine a world frozen, covered in snow, and suffering from frigid temperatures. In fact, during the last Ice Age (ice ages recur approximately every 50,000 to 100,000 years), the average temperature of the earth was only 5 degrees Celsius cooler than today's average temperatures.
Global warming is a significant increase in the Earth's temperature over a relatively short period of time as a result of human activities.
In particular, an increase of 1 or more degrees Celsius over a period of one hundred to two hundred years will be considered global warming.
Over the course of one century, an increase of even 0.4 degrees Celsius would be significant.
Scientists have determined that the Earth warmed by 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1901 and 2000.
Of the past 12 years, 11 have ranked among the warmest years since 1850. was 2016.
The warming trend of the last 50 years is almost double the trend of the last 100 years, which means that the rate of warming is accelerating.
Ocean temperatures increased to at least a depth of 3,000 meters; The ocean absorbs more than 80 percent of all heat added to the climate system.
Glaciers and snow cover have decreased in regions in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, contributing to sea level rise.
Average Arctic temperatures have nearly doubled the global average over the past 100 years.
The area covered by frozen land in the Arctic has declined by about 7 percent since 1900, with seasonal declines of up to 15 percent.
Eastern regions of the Americas, northern Europe, and parts of Asia experienced increased precipitation; in other regions, such as the Mediterranean and southern Africa, there is a drying trend.
Droughts are more intense, lasting longer and covering larger areas than in the past.
There were significant changes in temperature extremes - hot days and heat waves were more frequent while cold days and nights were less frequent.
While scientists have not observed an increase in the number of tropical storms, they have observed an increase in the intensity of such storms in the Atlantic Ocean, correlating with rising ocean surface temperatures.

Natural climate changes

Scientists have determined that it takes thousands of years for the Earth to naturally warm or cool 1 degree. In addition to the repeating cycles of the Ice Age, Earth's climate can change due to volcanic activity, differences in plant life, changes in the amount of radiation from the sun, and natural changes in atmospheric chemistry.

Global warming on Earth is caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect itself allows our planet to remain warm enough for life.

While it's not a perfect analogy, you can think of the Earth as your car parked on a sunny day. You've probably noticed that the inside of a car is always much hotter than the temperature outside if the car has been sitting in the sun for some time. The sun's rays penetrate through the car windows. Some of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the seats, dashboard, carpeting and floor mats. When these objects release this heat, it doesn't all escape through the windows. Some heat is reflected back. The heat emitted by the seats is a different wavelength than the sunlight that entered through the windows in the first place.

So a certain amount of energy comes in and less energy goes out. The result is a gradual increase in temperature inside the car.

The essence of the greenhouse effect

The greenhouse effect and its essence are much more complex than the temperature in the sun inside the car. When the sun's rays hit the Earth's atmosphere and surface, approximately 70 percent of the energy remains on the planet, absorbed by the land, oceans, plants and other things. The remaining 30 percent is reflected in space by clouds, snow fields and other reflective surfaces. But even the 70 percent that passes does not remain on the earth forever (otherwise the earth will become a blazing fireball). The Earth's oceans and land masses eventually radiate heat. Some of this heat ends up in space. The rest is absorbed and ends up in certain parts of the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor. These components in our atmosphere absorb all the heat that they emit. Heat that does not penetrate the Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet warmer than in outer space because more energy enters through the atmosphere than exits. This is the essence of the greenhouse effect, which keeps the earth warm.

Earth without greenhouse effect

What would the Earth look like if there were no greenhouse effect at all? It will likely be very similar to Mars. Mars doesn't have a thick enough atmosphere to reflect enough heat back to the planet, so it gets very cold there.

Some scientists have suggested that if implemented, we could terraform the surface of Mars by sending out “factories” that would spew water vapor and carbon dioxide into the air. If enough material can be created, the atmosphere can begin to thicken enough to retain more heat and allow plants to live on the surface. Once plants spread across Mars, they would begin to produce oxygen. In a few hundred or thousand years, Mars may actually have an environment where humans can simply walk, thanks to the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect occurs due to certain natural substances in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, humans have been pouring huge amounts of these substances into the air since the Industrial Revolution. The main ones are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless gas that is a by-product of combustion of organic matter. It makes up less than 0.04 percent of Earth's atmosphere, most of which was deposited by volcanic activity very early in the planet's life. Today, human activity is pumping huge volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, leading to an overall increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. These elevated concentrations are considered a major contributor to global warming because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Most of the energy that leaves Earth's atmosphere comes in this form, so extra CO2 means more energy absorption and an overall rise in the planet's temperature.

Carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Earth's largest volcano Mauna Loa, Hawaii reports that carbon dioxide emissions worldwide have increased from about 1 billion tons in 1900 to about 7 billion tons in 1995. also notes that the average temperature of the Earth's surface increased from 14.5 degrees C in 1860 to 15.3 degrees C in 1980.

The pre-industrial amount of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere was about 280 parts per million, which means that for every million molecules of dry air, 280 of them were CO2. In contrast to the 2017 level, CO2 share is 379 mg.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is another important greenhouse gas. Although the amounts released by human activity are not as large as the amount of CO2, nitrous oxide absorbs much more energy than CO2 (about 270 times more). For this reason, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also focus on N2O. Using large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer on crops releases nitrous oxide in large quantities and is also a byproduct of combustion.

Methane is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. Methane occurs naturally through the decomposition of organic material and is often found as “swamp gas.”

Man-made processes produce methane in several ways:

By extracting it from coal
From large herds of livestock (i.e. digestive gases)
From bacteria in rice fields
Decomposition of waste in landfills

Methane acts in the same way as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, absorbing infrared energy and storing thermal energy on Earth. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 was 1,774 parts per billion. Although there is not as much methane in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, methane can absorb and release twenty times more heat than CO2. Some scientists even suggest that large-scale release of methane into the atmosphere (for example, due to the release of huge chunks of methane ice trapped beneath the oceans) could have created the short periods of intense global warming that led to some of the mass extinctions in the planet's distant past.

Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations

Concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in 2018 exceeded their natural limits over the past 650,000 years. Much of this increase in concentration is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Scientists know that an average drop of just 5 degrees Celsius over thousands of years could trigger an ice age.

If the temperature increases

So what would happen if the Earth's average temperature increased by a few degrees in just a few hundred years? There is no clear answer. Even short-term weather forecasts are never completely accurate because weather is a complex phenomenon. When it comes to long-term climate forecasts, all we can manage are guesses based on knowledge of climate through history.

However, it can be stated that Glaciers and ice shelves around the world are melting. The loss of large areas of surface ice could accelerate Earth's global warming because less energy from the sun would be reflected. The immediate result of melting glaciers will be rising sea levels. Initially, sea level rise will be only 3-5 centimeters. Even a small rise in sea level can cause flooding problems in low-lying coastal areas. However, if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melts and collapses into the sea, it will raise sea levels by 10 meters and many coastal areas will disappear completely under the ocean.

Research Projections Show Sea Level Rise

Scientists estimate that sea levels rose by 17 centimeters in the 20th century. Scientists predict sea levels will rise throughout the 21st century, with levels rising between 17 and 50 centimeters by 2100. Scientists cannot yet address changes in ice flow in these forecasts due to a lack of scientific data. Sea levels are likely to be higher than the forecast range, but we can't be sure how much until more data is collected on the effects of global warming on ice flows.

As overall ocean temperatures rise, ocean storms such as tropical storms and hurricanes, which derive their fierce and destructive energy from the warm waters they pass through, may increase in strength.

If rising temperatures affect glaciers and ice shelves, could the polar ice caps be at risk of melting and rising oceans?

Impact of water vapor and other greenhouse gases

Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas, but it is most often the result of climate change rather than anthropogenic emissions. Water or moisture on the Earth's surface absorbs heat from the sun and the environment. When enough heat has been absorbed, some of the liquid molecules may have enough energy to evaporate and begin to rise into the atmosphere as vapor. As the steam rises higher and higher, the temperature of the surrounding air becomes lower and lower. Eventually, the steam loses enough heat to the surrounding air to allow it to return to the liquid. The gravitational pull of the earth then causes the liquid to “fall” down, completing the cycle. This cycle is also called “positive feedback.”

Water vapor is harder to measure than other greenhouse gases, and scientists aren't sure exactly what role it plays in Earth's global warming. Scientists believe there is a correlation between the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and the increase in water vapor.

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it ends up condensing into clouds, which are more able to reflect solar radiation (allowing less energy to reach the earth's surface and warm it).

Are the polar ice caps in danger of melting and rising oceans? It might happen, but no one knows when it might happen.

The earth's main ice sheet is Antarctica at the South Pole, where about 90 percent of the world's ice and 70 percent of its fresh water are found. Antarctica is covered with ice averaging 2133 m thick.

If all the ice in Antarctica melts, sea levels around the world will rise by about 61 meters. But the average air temperature in Antarctica is -37 ° C, so the ice there is not in danger of melting.

On the other side of the world, at the North Pole, the ice is not as thick as at the South Pole. Ice floats in the Arctic Ocean. If it melts, sea level will not be affected.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, temperatures are higher there, so the ice is likely to melt. University scientists say ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland combined accounts for about 12 percent of sea level rise.

But there may be a less dramatic reason for higher sea levels than melting polar ice: higher water temperatures.

Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius.

Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water takes up more space). As the overall temperature of water increases, it naturally expands slightly causing the oceans to rise.

Less dramatic changes would occur around the world as average temperatures would increase. Temperate climates with four seasons will have a longer growing season with more rainfall. This can be useful in many ways for these areas. However, less temperate areas of the world are likely to see rising temperatures and sharp declines in precipitation, leading to prolonged droughts and potentially creating deserts.

Because Earth's climate is so complex, no one is sure how much climate change in one region will affect other regions. Some scientists theorize that decreasing sea ice in the Arctic could reduce snowfall because Arctic cold fronts will be less intense. This could affect everything from farmland to the ski industry.

What are the consequences

The most devastating effects of global warming, and also the most difficult to predict, are the responses of the world's living ecosystems. Many ecosystems are very delicate, and the slightest change can kill several species, as well as any other species that depend on them. Most ecosystems are interconnected, so the chain reaction of impacts can be immeasurable. The results could be something like a forest gradually dying off into grassland or entire coral reefs dying.

Many plant and animal species have adapted to cope with climate change, but many have gone extinct.

Some ecosystems are already changing dramatically due to climate change. American climate scientists report that much of what was once tundra in Northern Canada is turning into forests. They also noticed that the transition from tundra to forest is not linear. Instead, the change seems to occur in fits and starts.

The human costs and consequences of global warming are difficult to quantify. Thousands of lives a year can be lost as the elderly or sick suffer from heatstroke and other heat-related injuries. Poor and underdeveloped countries will suffer the worst consequences as they will not have the financial resources to deal with rising temperatures. Huge numbers of people could die from starvation if reduced rainfall limits crop growth and from disease if coastal flooding leads to widespread waterborne disease.

It is estimated that farmers lose about 40 million tons of grains like wheat, barley and corn every year. Scientists have found that an increase in average temperature of 1 degree leads to a decrease in yield by 3-5%.

Is global warming a real problem?

Despite the scientific consensus on the issue, some people don't think global warming is happening at all. There are several reasons for this:

They don't think the data shows a measurable upward trend in global temperatures, either because we don't have enough long-term historical climate data or because the data we do have isn't clear enough.

Some scientists believe the data is being misinterpreted by people already concerned about global warming. That is, these people are looking for evidence of global warming in statistics, rather than looking at the evidence objectively and trying to understand what it means.

Some argue that any increase in global temperatures we are seeing could be natural climate change, or it could be due to factors other than greenhouse gases.

Most scientists accept that global warming appears to be happening on Earth, but some don't believe it's a big deal. These scientists say the Earth is more resilient to climate change on this scale than we think. Plants and animals will adapt to subtle shifts in weather patterns, and it is unlikely that anything catastrophic will happen as a result of global warming. Slightly longer growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels and stronger weather are generally not catastrophic, they say. They also argue that the economic damage caused by reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be far more detrimental to humans than any of the effects of global warming.

In some ways, scientific consensus can be controversial. The real power to effect significant change lies in the hands of those who make national and global policies. Policymakers in many countries are reluctant to propose and implement changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks associated with global warming.

Some common climate policy issues:

Changing carbon emissions and production policies could lead to job losses.
India and China, which continue to rely heavily on coal as their main source of energy, will continue to cause environmental problems.

Because scientific evidence is about probabilities rather than certainties, we cannot be sure that human behavior is contributing to global warming, that our contribution is significant, or that we can do anything to correct it.

Some believe that technology will find a way to get us out of the global warming mess, so any changes to our policies will ultimately be unnecessary and cause more harm than good.

What's the correct answer? This may be difficult to understand. Most scientists will tell you that global warming is real and that it will likely cause some harm, but the scale of the problem and the dangers posed by its effects are widely open to debate.

In the distant past, the Earth was much hotter than it is today, which means global warming can seriously heat up the planet. Lately it has been getting warmer. November 2015 saw Britons experience the hottest November days the UK has seen since records began. News from the World Meteorological Organization followed soon after: 2015 was likely to be the hottest year since records began.

Global temperatures are 1 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That's half the politically agreed upon 2-degree upper limit that world leaders set in 2009. Everything is heading towards the fact that the temperature of the world will become higher and higher. How hot can the Earth get? Is there a limit to the amount of warming that human actions can lead to?

The Earth has experienced climate change before. The planet has gone through countless temperature fluctuations in its 4.6 billion-year history, from snowball Earth to scorching tropical heat. And despite all these changes, the Earth always returns to approximately the same temperature range. Because it has mechanisms to control its own temperature.

We've already seen that a warming planet releases more greenhouse gases, causing even more warming. In theory, this self-fueling mechanism could become unstoppable, warming the planet by hundreds of degrees.

This has never happened on Earth: and if it had, we wouldn’t exist. But scientists believe that this happened to the closest planet to us, Venus, 3-4 billion years ago.

Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth, so it started with a higher temperature. The temperature on its surface rose so much that all liquid water evaporated into the air. This water vapor trapped even more heat, and the lack of water on the surface meant there was nowhere to hold carbon dioxide.

This has led to extreme greenhouse conditions. Eventually all the water vapor was lost to space, leaving Venus with an atmosphere that was 96% carbon dioxide. Now on this planet the average temperature is 462 degrees. It's hot enough to melt lead; Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system, surpassing even Mercury, which is closer to the Sun and literally “polished” by its brutal influence.

Everything is heading towards the fact that a similar catastrophe could befall the Earth in a couple of billion years.

As the Sun ages, it slowly burns out its fuel and becomes a red giant. One day it will become so bright that the Earth will no longer be able to dissipate excess heat into space. The planet's surface temperature will rise, boiling the oceans and triggering a greenhouse effect that will end all known life and turn the Earth into a baked good under a thick shroud of carbon dioxide.

However, this will not happen soon, so this problem is not a priority. The question is: can we independently trigger the growing greenhouse effect?

In 2013, a study was published that showed that this could be possible if we released truly staggering amounts of carbon dioxide. Now there are 400 parts per million of this gas in the air (before the industrial revolution it was 280 ppm). To trigger the growing greenhouse effect, we will have to raise this figure to 30,000 ppm.

We could have 10 times more carbon dioxide if we burned all known fossil fuels. There are other sources of greenhouse gases, such as methane on the seabed that escaped during PETM, so this option should not be ruled out. But it seems very unlikely that we will, willy-nilly, turn the planet into Venus.

This also does not mean that warming the planet will be safe for us. Raising the temperature even by a couple of degrees will cause undesirable effects. Parts of the planet are already too hot for people to live there.

In the hottest place on Earth today, like California's Death Valley, temperatures can exceed 50 degrees Celsius. This heat is dangerous, but with proper measures it can be lived with. Because the air is dry and we can cool ourselves by sweating.

If the air is both hot and humid, like in a tropical jungle, the temperature will be more difficult to manage. Humidity in the air means that steam evaporates more slowly, making it harder to cool down.

The best way to evaluate the combination of heat and humidity is to measure the "wet bulb temperature." This is the temperature that a thermometer will show if you wrap it in a damp cloth and direct air flow from a fan onto it. If you sweat, this is the lowest temperature you could cool your skin to.

People must maintain a body temperature of 37 degrees. To make sure we can always cool down, we keep our skin temperature close to 35 degrees. This means that a wet bulb temperature of 35 degrees or higher, if maintained for more than a couple of hours, would be fatal. Even if we could survive it, we would have to sit still.

Even in the hottest tropical forests, the maximum recorded wet-bulb temperature has never exceeded 31 degrees. This is because hot and humid air is unstable. It rises and is replaced by cooler air, causing tropical downpours.

But that may change.

Air can only rise if the air around it is colder and denser. So if climate change warms the tropics, that air will be even hotter and wetter before it begins to rise. A study published in 2010 found that for every 1 degree increase in average global temperature, the maximum wet bulb temperature would rise by 0.75 degrees.

This, in turn, leads to frightening conclusions. The 7 degree rise in global temperatures that we could experience as early as 2200 will render some parts of the globe completely uninhabitable for humans. An increase of 12 degrees will make half the Earth uninhabitable.

Of course, we could try to adapt by installing a lot of air conditioning equipment. But in addition to being expensive, it would also imprison people inside buildings for days or weeks.

Even without taking things to extremes, the current trend is that the Earth will be 4 degrees warmer by the end of this century than it was before the Industrial Revolution, and 3 degrees warmer than it is now. It won't kill us directly or render parts of the planet uninhabitable, but it will still create a huge upheaval.

20,000 years ago the Earth was 4 degrees colder than it is now. This period is known as the "Last Glacial Maximum". Ice covered most of Canada and northern Europe, including all of the British Isles.

Since then, the Earth has warmed by 4 degrees. This was enough to clear the ice from Europe and North America. Melting ice led to a rise in sea levels by tens of meters and drowned many small islands. Once you understand this, it's not hard to imagine what another 4 degrees of warming could lead to.

Based on materials from the BBC

This is the increase in average temperature on Earth due to greenhouse gas emissions: methane, carbon dioxide, water vapor. Some scientists believe that this is the fault of industry: manufacturing and cars generate emissions. They absorb some of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth. Due to the retained energy, the atmosphere layer and the surface of the planet are heated.

Global warming will lead to the melting of glaciers, and they, in turn, will raise the level of the World Ocean. Photo: depositphotos

However, there is another theory: global warming is a natural process. After all, nature itself also produces greenhouse gases: during volcanic eruptions, there is a colossal release of carbon dioxide, permafrost, or more precisely, the soil in permafrost regions releases methane, and so on.

The problem of warming was discussed back in the last century. In theory it leads to the flooding of many coastal cities, severe storms, heavy rainfall and long droughts, which will result in problems with agriculture. And mammals will migrate, and some species may become extinct in the process.

Is there warming in Russia?

Scientists are still debating whether warming has begun. Meanwhile, Russia is heating up. According to Roshydrometcenter data from 2014, the average temperature in European territory is rising faster than others. And this happens in all seasons except winter.

The temperature rises most rapidly (0.052 °C/year) in the northern and European territories of Russia. This is followed by Eastern Siberia (0.050 °C/year), Central Siberia (0.043), Amur and Primorye (0.039), Baikal and Transbaikalia (0.032), Western Siberia (0.029 °C/year). Of the federal districts, the highest rates of temperature increase are in the Central, the lowest in the Siberian (0.059 and 0.030 °C/year, respectively). Image: WWF

“Russia remains the part of the world where climate warming during the 21st century will significantly exceed average global warming,” the agency’s report says.

Many scientists believe that it is more correct to track global warming through the oceans. Judging by our seas, it has begun: the average temperature of the Black Sea is rising by 0.08°C per year, the Sea of Azov - by 0.07°C. In the White Sea, the temperature rises by 2.1°C per year.

Despite the fact that water and air temperatures are rising, experts are in no hurry to call it global warming.

“The fact of global warming has not yet been reliably established,” says Evgeny Zubko, associate professor at the School of Natural Sciences at the Far Eastern Federal University. - Temperature changes are the result of the simultaneous action of several processes. Some lead to warming, others to cooling.”

One of these processes is a decline in solar activity, which leads to significant cooling. There will be thousands of times fewer sunspots than usual, this happens once every 300-400 years. This phenomenon is called minimum solar activity. According to the forecasts of scientists from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, the decline will continue from 2030 to 2040.

Has the belt movement begun?

Climatic zones are areas with stable weather, elongated horizontally. There are seven of them: equatorial, tropical, temperate, polar, subequatorial, subtropical and subpolar. Our country is large, it is surrounded by arctic, subarctic, temperate and subtropical regions.

Climatic zones of the Earth according to B. P. Alisov. Image: Kliimavöötmed

“There is a possibility of the belts moving and, moreover, the shift is already underway,” says expert Evgeniy Zubko. What does it mean? Due to the displacement, warm edges will become colder and vice versa.

In Vorkuta (Arctic zone) green grass will grow, winters will be warmer, summers will be hotter. At the same time, it will get colder in the area of Sochi and Novorossiysk (subtropics). Winters will not be as mild as they are now, when snow falls and children are allowed to stay away from school. Summer won't be that long.

“The most striking example of belt shifts is the “offensive” of deserts,” says the climatologist. This is an increase in the area of deserts due to human activity - intensive ploughing. Residents of such places have to move, cities disappear, as does the local fauna.

At the end of the last century, the Aral Sea, located in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, began to dry up. The rapidly growing Aralkum desert is approaching it. The fact is that in Soviet times, a lot of water was drained from the two rivers that feed the sea for cotton plantations. This gradually dried up most of the sea, fishermen lost their jobs - the fish disappeared.

Some people left their homes, some residents remained, and they are having a hard time. The wind lifts salt and toxic substances from the exposed bottom, which negatively affects people's health. Therefore, they are now trying to restore the Aral Sea.

Every year, 6 million hectares are subject to desertification. For comparison, this is like all the forests of the Republic of Bashkortostan. The UN estimates that the cost of desert expansion is approximately US$65 billion per year.

Why do the belts move?

“Climate zones are shifting due to deforestation and changing river beds,” says climatologist Evgeny Zubko.

The Water Code of the Russian Federation prohibits artificially changing riverbeds without the appropriate permits. Parts of the river may silt, and then it will die. But uncoordinated changes in riverbeds still occur, sometimes on the initiative of local residents, sometimes to organize some kind of business near the reservoir.

What can we say about cutting down. In Russia, 4.3 million hectares of forest are destroyed annually, according to the World Resources Institute. More than the entire land fund of the Kaluga region. Therefore, Russia is among the top 5 world leaders in deforestation.

This is a disaster for nature and humans: when forest cover is destroyed, animals and plants die, rivers flowing nearby become shallow. Forests absorb harmful greenhouse gases, purifying the air. Without them, nearby cities will suffocate.

For more than a decade, the issue of the possibility of global warming has been in the spotlight of the world community. Judging by the news feeds of Internet sites and newspaper headlines, it may seem that this is the most pressing scientific, social and economic problem facing humanity today. Generously funded rallies and summits are regularly held in various parts of the globe, gathering a well-established cohort of fighters against the impending catastrophe. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was presented by fighters against global warming as the highest goal of the world community, and unprecedented pressure was exerted on the United States and Russia, as the largest countries that doubted the advisability of this step (as a result, they actually managed to “put pressure on us”).

Considering the huge price that not only Russia, but also other countries will have to pay in the practical implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and the far from obvious global consequences, it is worth once again analyzing how great the threat is and how we can, if we can at all, influence the course of events .

The essence of life is forecasting: any living organism tries to guess future environmental changes in order to respond adequately to them. It is not surprising that attempts to anticipate the future (today we call it futurology) became one of the first manifestations of conscious human activity. But either at all times pessimistic forecasts turned out to be more realistic, or the human psyche is more susceptible to them, one way or another, the topic of the coming global catastrophe has always been one of the most relevant. Legends about the global flood in the past and the imminent Apocalypse in the future can be found in almost all religions and teachings. As civilization developed, only the details and timing changed, but not the essence of the forecast.

The plot was well developed in antiquity, and modernity has been able to add little: the prophecies of Nostradamus are as popular now as they were during the author’s lifetime. And today, like thousands of years ago, no sooner has the predicted date of the next universal catastrophe passed than a new one is already on the way. The nuclear phobia of the 50-60s of the last century had barely subsided when the world learned about the impending “ozone” catastrophe, under the sword of Damocles almost the entire end of the 20th century passed. But the ink had not yet dried on the Montreal Protocol banning the production of chlorofluorocarbons (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and the true motives of the initiators), when the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 announced to the world an even more terrible threat of global warming.

Now this symbol of humanity’s coming reckoning for the “excesses” and “sins” of industrialization successfully competes in the media with sensations from the lives of pop stars and sports news. Apologists for “eco-religion” call on humanity to repent of what they have done and devote all their strength and resources to atone for their sins, that is, to put a significant share of their current and future well-being on the altar of the new faith. But as you know, when you are encouraged to donate, you need to carefully watch your wallet.

Although a political decision on the problem has already been made, it makes sense to discuss some fundamental issues. Still, the serious economic consequences of warming, even according to the darkest scenarios, are still several decades away. In addition, the Russian authorities have never been punctual in observing laws and fulfilling their obligations. And as the wise Lao Tzu taught, it is often the inaction of rulers that is good for their subjects. Let's try to answer a few of the most important questions:

How big are the actual observed climate changes?

It is usually stated that the temperature has risen by 0.6°C over the past century, although there is still apparently no uniform method for determining this parameter. For example, satellite data gives a lower value than ground-based measurements - only 0.2°C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of climate observations carried out a hundred years ago, modern observations and the sufficient breadth of their geographical coverage. In addition, natural climate fluctuations on a century scale, even with all external parameters being constant, are precisely approximately 0.4°C. So the threat is rather hypothetical.

Could the observed changes be caused by natural causes?

This is one of the most painful issues for fighters against global warming. There are many completely natural reasons that cause such and even more noticeable climate fluctuations, and the global climate can experience strong fluctuations without any external influences. Even with a fixed level of solar radiation and a constant concentration of greenhouse gases over a century, the fluctuation in average surface temperature can reach 0.4 ° C (an article was devoted to this problem in “ Nature", 1990, vol. 346, p. 713). In particular, due to the enormous thermal inertia of the ocean, chaotic changes in the atmosphere can cause aftereffects that affect decades later. And in order for our attempts to influence the atmosphere to have the desired effect, they must significantly exceed the natural fluctuation “noise” of the system.

What is the contribution of the anthropogenic factor to atmospheric processes?

Modern anthropogenic fluxes of the main greenhouse gases are almost two orders of magnitude lower than their natural fluxes and several times lower than the uncertainty in their assessment. In the draft IPCC report ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 1995 reported that “any claims of significant climate change are moot until the number of uncertain variables responsible for natural variability in the climate system is reduced.” And there: “There are no studies that say with certainty that all or part of the recorded climate changes are caused by anthropogenic factors.” These words were later replaced by others: “The balance of evidence suggests a clear human influence on the climate,” although no additional data was presented to substantiate this conclusion.

Moreover, the rate at which the climate impact of greenhouse gases is changing is by no means correlated with the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, the main source of their anthropogenic emissions. For example, in the early 1940s, when the growth rate of fuel consumption fell, global temperatures rose particularly rapidly, and in the 1960s and 1970s, when hydrocarbon consumption grew rapidly, global temperatures, on the contrary, decreased. Despite a 30% increase in carbon fuel production from the 70s to the end of the 90s, the rate of increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during this period slowed down sharply, and methane even began to decline.

The depth of our misunderstanding of global natural processes is especially clearly demonstrated by the course of changes in the concentration of methane in the atmosphere. Having begun 700 years before the industrial revolution - back in the days of the Vikings - this process has now just as unexpectedly stopped with the continued growth of production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emissions of hydrocarbons. According to two independent research groups from Australia, as well as from the United States and the Netherlands, the level of methane in the atmosphere has remained constant over the past four years.

What are the natural climate and atmospheric trends?

For obvious reasons, supporters of emergency measures also do not like to discuss this issue. Here we refer to the opinion of well-known domestic experts in this field (A.L. Yanshin, M.I. Budyko, Yu.A. Israel. Global warming and its consequences: Strategy of measures taken. In the collection: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Science, 2003).

“The study of changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the geological past showed that over millions of years the prevailing trend was a decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.<...>This process led to a decrease in the average temperature of the lower layer of air due to the weakening of the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, which, in turn, was accompanied by the development of glaciations, first at high and then in middle latitudes, as well as aridization (desertification. - Note edit.) vast areas at lower latitudes.

Along with this, with a reduced amount of carbon dioxide, the intensity of photosynthesis decreased, which, apparently, reduced the total biomass on our planet. These processes manifested themselves especially sharply during the glacial epochs of the Pleistocene, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere repeatedly approached 200 ppm. This concentration is not much higher than the critical concentration values, one of which corresponds to the glaciation of the entire planet, and the other to a decrease in photosynthesis to limits that make the existence of autotrophic plants impossible.<...>Without touching on the details of the remote possibility of the death of the biosphere as a result of its natural development, we note that the probability of such death seems significant.”

Thus, if humanity faces a climate catastrophe in the future, it will not be due to an excessive increase, but, on the contrary, due to a decrease in temperature! Let us recall that, according to modern geological concepts, we are living at the peak of the interglacial era, and the beginning of the next ice age is expected in the near future. And here is the conclusion of the authors: “By burning ever-increasing quantities of coal, oil and other types of carbon fuels, man has embarked on the path of restoring the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the warm eras of the geological past.<...>Man unintentionally stopped the process of depletion of carbon dioxide, the main resource in the creation of organic matter by autotrophic plants, which is dangerous for living nature, and made it possible to increase primary productivity, which is the basis for the existence of all heterotrophic organisms, including humans.”

What is the scale of expected climate change?

In different scenarios, the expected change in average temperature by the end of the century ranges from an increase of 10°C to a decrease relative to current levels. Usually they operate as a “most probable” average value of 2-3°C, although averaging does not make this value more reasonable. In fact, such a forecast should take into account not only the basic processes in the most complex natural machine that determines the climate of our planet, but also the scientific, technological and sociological achievements of mankind for the century ahead.

Do we understand today how the Earth's climate is formed, and if not, will we understand in the near future? All experts in this field confidently give a negative answer to both questions. Can we predict the technological and social development of civilization for the next hundred years? And in general, what is the time horizon of a more or less realistic forecast? The answer is also quite obvious. The most conservative and at the same time defining sectors of the modern economy are energy, raw materials, heavy and chemical industries. Capital costs in these industries are so high that the equipment is almost always used until the resource is completely exhausted - about 30 years. Consequently, the industrial and energy enterprises that are now being commissioned will determine the technological potential of the world during the first third of the century. Considering that all other industries (for example, electronics and communications) are evolving much faster, it is better not to think more than 30 years ahead. As a curious example showing the cost of more daring forecasts, we often recall the fears of futurologists at the end of the 19th century, who predicted that the streets of London would be littered with horse manure, although the first cars had already appeared on the roads of England.

In addition, according to alarmist scenarios, the main source of danger is hydrocarbon energy resources: oil, coal and gas. However, according to the forecasts of the same futurologists, even with the most economical use, humanity will only have enough of these resources for about a century, and a decrease in oil production is expected in the next ten years. Considering the proximity of a new ice age, apparently, one can only regret the short duration of the “hydrocarbon era” in the history of world energy.

Has humanity faced such large-scale climate changes before?

Oh yeah! And with some others! After all, an increase in global temperature by 10°C after the end of the ice age caused not only an ecological, but also a real economic catastrophe, undermining the foundations of the economic activity of primitive man - a hunter of mammoths and large ungulates of the tundra fauna. However, humanity not only survived, but precisely thanks to this event, having found a worthy answer to the challenge of nature, it rose to a new level, creating civilization.

As the example of our ancestors shows, an increase in global temperature does not pose a real threat to the existence of humanity (and especially to life on Earth, as is sometimes claimed). The consequences of the large-scale climate change expected today can be quite well imagined by considering the relatively close Pliocene era (the period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct ancestors of humans appeared. The average surface temperature at that time was more than 1°C higher than today. And if our primitive ancestors managed to survive both the ice age and the warming that followed it, then it is even inconvenient to estimate our own potential so low.

Noticeable climate changes also occurred during the historical period of the existence of civilization: this was shown by data from paleoclimatic studies and historical chronicles. Climate change caused the rise and fall of many great civilizations, but did not pose a threat to humanity as a whole. (Suffice it to recall the decline of cattle breeding in the Sahara, the civilization of Mesopotamia, the Tangut kingdom in Northern China; more information about the role of climate change in the history of culture can be read in L.N. Gumilyov’s book “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth.”)

What are the potential consequences of climate change, on the one hand, and the economic cost of our efforts to slow it down, on the other?

One of the most threatening consequences of global warming is considered to be a rise in the level of the World Ocean by tens of meters, which will occur with the complete melting of the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica. Alarmists usually forget to clarify that under the most unfavorable circumstances this will take more than 1000 years! The actual rise in sea level over the past century was 10-20 cm, with a much greater amplitude of transgression and regression of the coastline as a result of tectonic processes. In the next hundred years, the sea level is expected to rise by no more than 88 cm, which is unlikely to disrupt the global economy. Such a rise in sea level can only cause the gradual migration of a small part of the world's population - a phenomenon much less tragic than the annual death of tens of millions of people from starvation. And we hardly need to worry about how our distant descendants will cope with the flood in a thousand years (remember the “horse manure problem”!). Who will undertake to predict how our civilization will change by then, and whether this problem will be among the pressing ones?

So far, the expected annual damage to the global economy by 2050 due to the projected increase in temperature is estimated at only $300 billion. This is less than 1% of modern world GDP. How much will it cost to combat global warming?

World Watch Institute ( WorldWatch Institute) in Washington believes that it is necessary to introduce a “carbon tax” of $50. per 1 ton of carbon to stimulate the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, improve combustion and resource conservation technologies. But according to estimates from the same institute, such a tax will increase the cost of 1 liter of gasoline by 4.5 cents, and the cost of 1 kWh of electricity by 2 cents (that is, almost twice!). And for the widespread introduction of solar and hydrogen energy sources, this tax should already range from 70 to 660 dollars. for 1 t.

The costs of meeting the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are estimated at 1-2% of world GDP, while the estimated positive effect does not exceed 1.3%. In addition, climate models predict that stabilizing the climate will require significantly greater reductions in emissions than the protocol's return to 1990 levels.

Here we come to another fundamental issue. Activists of “green” movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental measures require the consumption of resources and energy and, like any type of production activity, cause undesirable environmental consequences. From the point of view of global ecology, there is no harmless production activity. The same “alternative” energy, with full consideration of all emissions into the environment during the production, operation and disposal of the necessary raw materials and equipment, for example solar panels, agricultural machinery, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen, etc., in most cases turns out to be more dangerous, than coal power.

“Until now, in the minds of most people, the negative environmental consequences of economic activity are associated with smoking factory chimneys or the dead surface of abandoned quarries and industrial landfills. Indeed, the contribution to environmental poisoning from such industries as metallurgy, the chemical industry, and energy is great. But no less dangerous to the biosphere are idyllic farmlands, well-kept forest parks and city lawns. The openness of the local circulation as a result of human economic activity means that the existence of an area artificially maintained in a stationary state is accompanied by a deterioration in the state of the environment in the rest of the biosphere. A blooming garden, lake or river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circulation of substances with productivity brought to the maximum, is much more dangerous for the biosphere as a whole than abandoned land turned into a desert” (from the book by V.G. Gorshkov “Physical and Biological Foundations sustainability of life". M.: VINITI, 1995).

Therefore, the strategy of preventive measures is not applicable in global ecology. It is necessary to quantify the optimal balance between the desired result and the costs of reducing environmental damage. The cost of preventing the emission of a ton of carbon dioxide reaches $300, while the cost of hydrocarbon raw materials that produces this ton when burned is less than $100 (remember that 1 ton of hydrocarbons produces 3 tons of CO 2), and this means that we increase our total energy costs by several times , the cost of energy received and the rate of depletion of scarce hydrocarbon resources. In addition, even in the USA for 1 million dollars. of GDP produced, 240 tons of CO 2 are emitted (in other countries, much more, for example, in Russia - five times!), and most of the GDP comes from non-productive, that is, non-CO 2 emitting industries. It turns out that the cost is 300 dollars. for the disposal of 1 ton of carbon dioxide will lead to additional emissions of at least several hundred kilograms of the same CO 2. Thus, we risk starting a giant machine that idly burns our already scarce energy resources. Apparently, such calculations prompted the United States to abandon ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

But there is also a fundamentally different approach. Instead of wasting energy and resources fighting the inevitable, you need to evaluate whether it would be cheaper to adapt to the changes and try to benefit from them. And then it turns out that the reduction of the land surface due to its partial flooding will be more than compensated by the increase in the usable territory in Siberia, and over time in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as by increasing the overall productivity of the biosphere. Increasing the carbon dioxide content in the air will be beneficial for most crops. This becomes clear if we remember that the genera to which modern cultivated plants belong appeared in the early Pliocene and late Miocene, when the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere reached 0.4%, that is, it was an order of magnitude higher than today. It has been experimentally shown that doubling the concentration of CO 2 in the atmospheric air can lead to a 30% increase in the yield of some agricultural crops, and this is extremely important for the rapidly growing population of the planet.

Who is in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and why?

Western European politicians and the public take the most active position in the fight against global warming. To understand the reasons for such an emotional attitude of Europeans to this problem, just look at the geographical map. Western Europe is located in the same latitudinal band as Siberia. But what a climatic contrast! In Stockholm, at the same latitude as Magadan, grapes ripen steadily. A gift of fate in the form of a warm Gulf Stream became the economic basis of European civilization and culture.

Therefore, Europeans are not concerned about global warming and the fate of the population of Bangladesh, which is at risk of being left without territory, but about local cooling in Western Europe, which could result from a restructuring of oceanic and atmospheric flows with a significant increase in global temperature. Although no one is now able to even approximately determine the threshold temperature for the beginning of such a restructuring, its consequences for the historical centers of Western European civilization can be very serious.

European politicians, as a rule, take the toughest and most uncompromising position in negotiations on these issues. But we must also understand what their motives are. Do we really take the fate of Western Europeans so seriously that we are willing to sacrifice our future to preserve their well-being? By the way, in warmer Siberia there is enough space for all Europeans, and maybe new settlers will finally settle it.

There is also a more prosaic reason that forces Europeans to fight for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. It's no secret that Western Europe consumes about 16% of the world's energy resources. Acute energy shortages are forcing Europeans to actively implement expensive energy-saving technologies, and this is undermining their competitiveness in the global market. From this point of view, the Kyoto Protocol is a brilliant move: to impose the same strict energy consumption standards on potential competitors, and at the same time create a market for the sale of their energy-saving technologies. The Americans refused to voluntarily impose restrictions on themselves that would undermine their economy and benefit their Western European competitors. China, India and other developing countries, the main competitors of the industrial powers of the Old World, including Russia, do the same. It seems that we are the only ones who are not afraid that as a result of signing the protocol, our competitiveness will fall below the current, approximately 55th place in the world ranking...

What will Russia gain and what will it lose from participation or non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol?

The climate of Russia is the harshest on the globe. The weather in the northern countries of Europe is determined by the warm Gulf Stream, and in Canada almost the entire population lives along the border with the United States, that is, much south of Moscow. This is one of the main reasons that per unit of GDP produced, Russia spends five times more energy (and produces more CO 2!) than the United States and European countries. For a country, more than 60% of whose territory is located in the permafrost zone, reaching in Transbaikalia almost to our southern border, it is somehow absurd to fight warming. Economists estimate that an increase in average annual temperature by one degree reduces the cost of maintaining each workplace by half. It turns out that we voluntarily agree to participate in the fight against the natural possibility of doubling our economic potential, although the president officially proclaimed such doubling as the goal of state policy!

We do not undertake to discuss the political benefits of demonstrating unity with Europe on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. The opportunity to make money from “air trading” (that is, CO 2 emission quotas) also makes no sense to consider seriously. Firstly, we are already placed at the very end of a long line of potential sellers, after all the new EU members, North African and Middle Eastern countries. Secondly, with a price set at 5 euros for a quota of 1 ton of CO 2 (with a real price of 300 dollars!), the revenue will not be comparable to our current oil and gas exports. And thirdly, given the projected rate of development of the Russian economy even before 2012, we will have to think not about selling, but about buying quotas. Unless, for the sake of demonstrating European unity, we agree to voluntarily limit our economic development.

This possibility seems incredible, but let us recall that since 2000, in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, the production of substances that lead to the destruction of the ozone layer has been stopped in Russia. Since Russia did not have time to develop and implement its own alternative technologies by this time, this led to the almost complete elimination of Russian production of aerosols and refrigeration equipment. And the domestic market was captured by foreign, mainly Western European manufacturers. Unfortunately, now history is repeating itself: energy saving is by no means the strongest side of the Russian energy sector and we do not have our own energy-saving technologies...

The blatant injustice of the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Russia also lies in the fact that the boreal forests of Russia with an area of 8.5 million km 2 (or 22% of the area of all forests on Earth) accumulate 323 Gt of carbon per year. No other ecosystem on Earth can compare with them. According to modern concepts, tropical rainforests, which are sometimes called the “lungs of the planet,” absorb approximately the same amount of CO 2 as is released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the temperate forests north of 30° N. w. store 26% of the Earth's carbon (http://epa.gov/climatechange/). This alone allows Russia to demand a special approach - for example, the allocation by the world community of funds to compensate for damage from restrictions on economic activity and nature conservation in these regions.

Will the measures provided for by the Kyoto Protocol prevent warming?

Alas, even supporters of the protocol are forced to give a negative answer to this most important question. According to climate models, if greenhouse gas emissions are not controlled, by 2100 the concentration of carbon dioxide could increase by 30-150% compared to current levels. This could lead to an increase in the average global temperature of the earth's surface by 1-3.5 ° C by 2100 (with significant regional variations in this value), which, of course, will cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activity. However, if we assume that the conditions of the protocol will be met by reducing CO 2 emissions, the reduction in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to a scenario in which there is no emission regulation at all will be from 20 to 80 ppm by 2100. At the same time, to stabilize its concentration at at least 550 ppm, a reduction of at least 170 ppm is necessary. In all considered scenarios, the resulting effect of this on temperature change is insignificant: only 0.08 - 0.28 ° C. Thus, the real expected effect of the Kyoto Protocol comes down to demonstrating fidelity to “ecological ideals.” But is the price for demonstration too high?

Is global warming the most important problem facing humanity today?

Another unpleasant question for advocates of “ecological ideals”. The fact that the third world has long lost interest in this problem was clearly shown by the 2002 summit in Johannesburg, the participants of which stated that the fight against poverty and hunger is more important for humanity than possible climate change in the distant future. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly understood the whole background of what was happening, were rightly outraged by the attempt to solve European problems at their expense, especially since in the coming decades the main increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will come from the technologically backward energy sector of developing countries, which is not regulated by the Kyoto Protocol.

What does this problem look like in the context of the further development of civilization?

The conflict between man and Nature is by no means a consequence of our “ecological uncleanliness”. Its essence is the violation of the biosphere balance by civilization, and from this point of view, both pastoral-patriarchal agriculture and the “green” dream of “renewable” energy pose no less of a threat than the loudly cursed industrialization. According to the estimates given in the already mentioned book by V.G. Gorshkov, to maintain the stability of the biosphere, civilization should not consume more than 1% of the net primary production of the global biota. Modern direct consumption of biospheric land products is already almost an order of magnitude greater, and the share of the developed and transformed part of the land has exceeded 60%.

Nature and Civilization are essentially antagonists. Civilization strives to use the potential accumulated by Nature as a resource for its development. And for the system of natural regulators, fine-tuned over billions of years of existence of the biosphere, the activity of Civilization is a disturbing influence that must be suppressed in order to return the system to equilibrium.

From the very birth of our planet, the essence of the evolution of matter taking place on it is the acceleration of the processes of transformation of matter and energy. Only it is capable of supporting the stable development of such complex non-equilibrium systems as the Biosphere or Civilization. Throughout the existence of our planet and throughout human history, the processes of the emergence of new, increasingly complex biological, and then historical and technological forms of organization of matter have continuously accelerated. This is a basic principle of evolution that cannot be undone or circumvented. Accordingly, our civilization will either stop in its development and die (and then something else will inevitably arise in its place, but essentially similar), or it will evolve, processing ever larger volumes of matter and dissipating more and more energy into the surrounding space. Therefore, an attempt to fit into Nature is a strategically dead-end path, which sooner or later will still lead to the cessation of development, and then to degradation and death. The Eskimos of the North and the Papuans of New Guinea have come a long and difficult path, as a result of which they fit perfectly into the surrounding nature - but paid for it by stopping their development. This path can only be considered as a time-out on the eve of a qualitative change in the nature of civilization.

Another way is to take on all the functions of managing natural processes, replacing the biosphere mechanism of homeostasis with an artificial one, that is, to create a technosphere. It is on this path, perhaps without fully realizing it, that supporters of climate control are pushing us. But the volume of information circulating in the technosphere is many orders of magnitude smaller than that circulating in the biosphere, so the reliability of such technosphere regulation is still too low to guarantee humanity’s salvation from death. Having started with the artificial regulation of the “dying” ozone layer, we are already forced to think about the negative consequences of excess atmospheric ozone. And an attempt to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases is only the beginning of an endless and hopeless search to replace natural biosphere regulators with artificial ones.

The third and most realistic way is co-evolution (according to N.N. Moiseev) of Nature and Civilization - mutual adaptive transformation. We don't know what the result will be. But we can assume that the inevitable change in climate and other natural conditions on the surface of the Earth will be the beginning of a movement towards a new global balance, a new global unity of Nature and Civilization.

Against the backdrop of the turbulent social and economic processes taking place in the modern world, and the real problems facing the multi-billion-dollar population of the planet, on the verge of a fundamental change in the nature of Civilization and its relationship with Nature, an attempt to regulate climate will most likely come to naught naturally as soon as will come down to real costs. Using the example of ozone history, Russia already has sad experience of participating in solving global problems. And it would be good for us not to repeat the mistakes we once made, because if the domestic energy sector suffers the fate of the domestic refrigeration industry, even the most terrible global warming will not save us.