According to scientists, by the beginning the average temperature of the Earth's surface may increase by 1.8 to 3.4 °C. In some regions, the temperature may drop slightly (see Fig. 1).
According to experts (IPCC) , the average temperature on Earth has risen by 0.7 ° Cfrom the second halfand “much of the warming observed in the past 50 years is due to". itfirst of allejection,calling as a result of burning , and .(see fig.2) .
The strongest temperature fluctuations are observed in the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula (see Figure 3). It is the polar regions that are most sensitive to climate change, where water is on the border of melting and freezing. A slight cooling leads to an increase in the area of snow and ice, which well reflect solar radiation into space, thereby contributing to a further decrease in temperature. Conversely, warming leads to a reduction in snow and ice cover, better water heating and intensive melting of glaciers, which leads to an increase in ocean level.
In addition to increasing , an increase in temperature will also lead to changes in quantity and distribution. As a result, natural disasters may become more frequent:, and others. Warming is likely to increase the frequency and magnitude of such events.
Another possible consequence of rising global temperatures is lower crop yields in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and higher yields in developed countries (due to longer growing seasons).
Climate warming can lead to a shift in the habitats of plant and animal species to the polar zone, which will increase the likelihood of extinction of small species that inhabit coastal zones and islands, whose existence is currently under threat of extinction.
By 2013, the scientific community reports that the process of global warming has stopped, and the reasons for the cessation of temperature growth are being studied.
The purpose of my work is to investigate global warming and find ways to solve this problem.
Research objectives:
Explore various theories of global warming;
Assess the consequences of this process;
Suggest measures to prevent global warming.
Research methods used in my work:
Empirical
Statistical
Mathematical, etc.
Climate change on Earth.
The climate is changing as a result of natural internal processes, and external impacts on the environment (see Fig. 4). Over the past 2000 years, several climatic cycles of cooling and warming, replacing each other, are clearly distinguished.
Climatic shifts of our era.
0 - 400 years
. The climate was probably hot, but not dry. The temperature was roughly the same as today, and to the north of the Alps it was even higher than today. Wetter climates prevailed in North Africa and the Middle East.
400 - 1000 years
. The average annual temperature was 1-1.5 degrees lower than the current one. In general, the climate has become wetter and winters colder. In Europe, cold temperatures have also been associated with increased humidity. The limit of tree distribution in the Alps has decreased by about 200 meters, and the glaciers have increased.
1000 - 1300 years
. The era of relatively warm climate inin- centuries, was characterized by mild winters, relatively warm and even weather.
1300 - 1850
. Period, which took place onduring- . This period is the coldest in the last 2,000 years.
1850 - 20?? gg
"Global warming". Estimates from climate models suggest that the average temperature of the Earth's surface may rise by 1.8 to 3.4 °C by the beginning.
Causes of global warming.
The causes of climate change remain unknown, however, among the main external influences are changes in the Earth's orbit, volcanic emissions and . According to direct climate observations, average temperatures on Earth have increased, but the reasons for this increase remain a matter of debate. One of the most widely discussed causes is anthropogenic .
.
According to some scholarsthe presentglobal warming is attributed to human activity. It is caused by an anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, and, as a result, an increase in ». The effect of its presence in resembles the greenhouse effect, when short-wave solar radiation easily penetrates through the CO layer. 2 , and then, reflected from the earth's surface and turning into long-wave radiation, cannot penetrate back through it and remains in the atmosphere. This layer acts like a film in a greenhouse - it creates an additional thermal effect.
The greenhouse effect was discovered in and was first studied inyear. This is the process by which absorption and emission causes the atmosphere and surface to heat up..
On Earth, the main greenhouse gases are: (responsible for approximately 36-70% of the greenhouse effect, excluding clouds), (CO 2 ) (9-26%), (CH 4 ) (4-9%) and (3-7%). Atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 and CH 4 increased from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the middle by 31% and 149% respectively. According to separate studies, such concentration levels have been reached for the first time in the last 650,000 years. This is the period for which data were obtained from polar ice samples. Carbon dioxide creates 50% of the greenhouse effect, chlorofluorocarbon accounts for 15-20%, methane - 18%, nitrogen 6% (Fig. 5).
About half of all greenhouse gases produced by human activities remain in the atmosphere. About three-quarters of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions over the past 20 years have been the result of fuel combustion. At the same time, about half of the volume of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is associated with terrestrial vegetation and the ocean. Most of the remaining CO 2 emissions are caused primarily by deforestation and a decrease in the amount of vegetation that absorbs carbon dioxide.
2.2 Change in solar activity.
Scientists have proposed a variety of explanations for changes in the temperature of the Earth. All ongoing climatic processes on the planet depend on the activity of our luminary - the Sun. Therefore, even the smallest changes in solar activity will certainly affect the weather and climate of the Earth. There are 11-year, 22-year, and 80-90-year (Gleisberg) cycles of solar activity. It is likely that the observed global warming is due to the next increase in solar activity, which may decline again in the future. Solar activity could explain half of the temperature changes before 1970. Under the action of solar radiation, the thickness of mountain glaciers changes. For example, in the Alps almost the Pasterze glacier was melting (see Fig. 6). And glaciers are thinning in some areas, while ice sheets are thickening in others (see Fig. 7). Over the past half century, temperatures in southwestern Antarctica have increased by 2.5°C. In from the shelf with an area of 3250 km² and a thickness of over 200 meters, located on the Antarctic Peninsula, an area of over 2500 km² broke away. The entire destruction process took only 35 days. Prior to this, the glacier had remained stable for 10,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. The melting of the ice shelf led to the release of a large number of icebergs (over a thousand) in (see Fig. 8).
2.3 Influence of the World Ocean.
The oceans are a huge storage of solar energy. It determines the direction and speed of movement of warm ocean currents, as well as air masses on Earth, which greatly affect the climate of the planet. At present, the nature of heat circulation in the water column of the ocean has been little studied. It is known that the average temperature of the ocean waters is 3.5°C, and the land surface is 15°C, therefore, enhanced heat transfer between the ocean and the surface layer of the atmosphere can lead to significant climate changes (Fig. 9). In addition, a large amount of CO 2 is dissolved in the waters of the ocean (about 140 trillion tons, which is 60 times more than in the atmosphere) and a number of other greenhouse gases. As a result of various natural processes, these gases can enter the atmosphere, significantly affecting the Earth's climate.
2 .4 Volcanic activity.
Volcanic activity is also a source of sulfuric acid aerosols and a large amount of carbon dioxide released during volcanic eruptions into the Earth's atmosphere. Large eruptions are initially accompanied by cooling due to the entry of ash, sulfuric acid and soot particles into the Earth's atmosphere. Subsequently, the CO 2 released during the eruption causes an increase in the average annual temperature on Earth. The subsequent long-term decrease in volcanic activity contributes to an increase in the transparency of the atmosphere, and leads to an increase in temperature on the planet. This can significantly affect the Earth's climate.
3.Results global warming research.
When studying global warming by different weather stations of the world, four series of global temperatures were identified, starting with the second half of the 19th century (see Fig. 10). They show two distinct episodes of global warming. One of them falls on the period from 1910 to 1940. During this time, the average temperature on Earth increased by 0.3-0.4°C. Then, for 30 years, the temperature did not rise and, perhaps, even dropped slightly. And since 1970, a new episode of warming began, which continues to this day. During this time, the temperature increased by another 0.6-0.8°C. Thus, in general, over the 20th century, the average global surface air temperature on Earth has increased by about one degree. This is quite a lot, because even when the ice age comes out, the warming is usually only 4° C.
By studying changes in the level of the World Ocean, scientists have found that the average sea level has been rising over the past 100 years at an average rate of about 1.7 mm / year, which is significantly more than the average rate over the past few thousand years. Since 1993, the global sea level has begun to rise at an accelerated rate - about 3.5 mm / year (see Fig. 11). The main cause of sea level rise today is the increase in the heat content of the ocean, which leads to its expansion. Ice melt is expected to play a larger role in accelerating sea level rise in the future.
The total volume of glaciers on Earth is shrinking rather sharply. Glaciers have been gradually shrinking throughout the last century. But the rate of decline has noticeably increased in the last decade (see Fig. 12). Only a few glaciers are still growing. The gradual disappearance of glaciers will be the result of not only rising sea levels, but also the emergence of problems with the provision of fresh water to some parts of Asia and South America.
.
There is a theory, which often used by opponents of the concepts of anthropogenic global warming and the greenhouse effect. They argue that modern warming is a natural way out of the Little Ice Age of the XIV-XIX centuries, which will lead to the restoration of the temperatures of the small climatic optimum of the X-XIII centuries.
Global warming may not happen everywhere. According to the hypothesis of climatologists M. Ewing and W. Donn, there is an oscillatory process in which the ice age is generated by climate warming, and the exit from the ice age is caused by cooling. This is due to the fact that when the polar ice caps thaw, the amount of precipitation in polar latitudes increases. Subsequently, there is a decrease in temperature in the inland regions of the northern hemisphere, followed by the formation of glaciers. When the ice polar caps freeze, the glaciers in the deep regions of the continents, not receiving enough recharge in the form of precipitation, begin to thaw.
According to one hypothesis, global warming will lead to a stop or a serious weakening. This will cause a significant drop in the average temperature in (while the temperature in other regions will increase, but not necessarily in all), as the Gulf Stream warms the continent due to the transfer of warm water from the tropics.
5. Consequences of global warming.
Currently, the climate warming factor is considered on a par with other known health risk factors - smoking, alcohol, overnutrition, low physical activity and others.
5.1 Spread of infections.
As a result of climate warming, an increase in precipitation, an expansion of wetlands and an increase in the number of flooded settlements are expected. The area of settlement of reservoirs by mosquito larvae is constantly increasing, including 70% of reservoirs are infected with larvae of malarial mosquitoes. According to WHO experts, an increase in temperature by 2-3 ° C leads to an increase in the number of people who can get malaria by about 3-5%. Mosquito-borne (“mosquito”) diseases may occur, such as West Nile fever (WNF), Dengue fever, yellow fever. An increase in the number of days with high temperatures leads to the activation of ticks and an increase in the incidence of infections they carry.
5.2. Melting permafrost.
In the depths of the frozen rocks preserved gas - methane. It causes an incomparably greater greenhouse effect than CO2. If methane is released into the atmosphere as permafrost melts, climate change will be irreversible. The planet will become suitable only for cockroaches and bacteria. In addition, dozens of cities built on permafrost will simply sink. The percentage of building deformations in the north is already very high and is growing all the time. Due to the melting of the permafrost, it will be impossible to extract oil, gas, nickel, diamonds and copper. With global warming, with an increase in temperature, new outbreaks of viruses will occur, it becomes available to bacteria and fungi that decompose methane.
5.3 Abnormal natural phenomena.
Scientists believe that one of the consequences of climate change is an increase in the number of such abnormal weather phenomena as floods, storms, typhoons, and hurricanes. R The increase in the frequency, intensity and duration of droughts in some regions will lead to an increase in fire hazard in forest areas, a noticeable expansion of drought areas and desert lands. In other regions of the Earth, we can expect an increase in winds and an increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones, an increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation due to which floods will become more frequent, which will lead to waterlogging of the soil, which is dangerous for Agriculture.
5.4 Ocean level rise.
In the northern seas, the number of glaciers will decrease (for example, in Greenland), which will lead to a rise in the level of the World Ocean. Then coastal areas will be under water, the level of which is below sea level. For example, the Netherlands, which, under the pressure of the sea, only with the help of dams retain their territory; Japan, which has many manufacturing facilities in such areas; many islands in the tropics can be flooded with the ocean.
5.5 Economic implications.
Climate change costs rise with temperature. Severe storms and floods cause billions of dollars in losses. extreme weather create extreme financial problems. For example, after a record-breaking hurricane in 2005, Louisiana experienced a 15 percent drop in revenue a month after the storm, and property damage was estimated at $135 billion. Consumers regularly face rising food and energy prices along with rising costs medical services and real estate. As drylands expand, food production is threatened and some populations are at risk of going hungry. Today, India, Pakistan, and sub-Saharan Africa are suffering from food shortages, and experts predict even greater reductions in rainfall in the coming decades. Thus, according to estimates, a very gloomy picture emerges. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that by 2020, 75-200 million Africans could experience water scarcity and the continent's agricultural output could fall by 50 percent.
5.6 Loss of biodiversity and destruction of ecosystems.
By 2050, humanity risks losing as much as 30 percent of animal and plant species if the average temperature rises by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Such extinction will occur due to loss of habitat through desertification, deforestation and warming ocean waters, as well as due to the inability to adapt to ongoing climate change. Researchers wildlife noted that some of the more resilient species migrated to the poles in order to "maintain" the habitat they needed. When plants and animals disappear as a result of climate change, human food, fuel and income will also disappear. Scientists are already seeing bleaching and death of coral reefs due to warming ocean waters, as well as the migration of the most vulnerable plant and animal species to other areas due to rising air and water temperatures, as well as in connection with the melting of glaciers. Changing climatic conditions and a sharp increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a serious test for our ecosystems.
6. Areas of climate change.
The Intergovernmental Commission has identified a number of areas most vulnerable to expected climate change:
In Asia's mega-delta region, small islands will see increased droughts and increased desertification;
In Europe, rising temperatures will reduce water resources and hydropower generation, reduce agricultural output, worsen tourism conditions, shrinking snow cover and retreat of mountain glaciers, increased summer precipitation and increased risk of heavy and catastrophic rivers;
In Central and Eastern Europe, there will be an increase in the frequency of forest fires, fires on peatlands, a decrease in forest productivity; increasing ground instability in Northern Europe.
In the Arctic - a catastrophic decrease in the area of ice cover, a reduction in the area sea ice, strengthening of the coast;
In the southwest of Antarctica, on , the temperature increased by 2.5 °C. The mass of Antarctic ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate;
In Western Siberia, since the early 1970s, the temperature of permafrost soils has increased by 1.0 ° C, in central Yakutia - by 1-1.5 ° C in the northern regions - the Arkhangelsk region, the Komi Republic has not warmed at all;
In the north, since the mid-1980s, the temperature of the upper layer of frozen rocks has increased by 3 ° C, and the fertile California has become somewhat colder;
In the southern regions, in particular, in Ukraine, it also got a little colder.
7. Measures to prevent global warming.
To stop growing CO2 , it is necessary to replace traditional types of energy based on the combustion of carbon raw materials with non-traditional ones. It is necessary to increase the production of solar panels, wind turbines, the construction of tidal power plants (TPP), geothermal and hydroelectric power plants (HPP).
The problem of global warming must be solved at the international level, in accordance with a single international program drawn up with the participation of the governments of all countries and the world community, under a single international leadership. To date, the main global agreement on combating global warming is (agreed on, entered into force on). The protocol includes more than 160 countries of the world and covers about 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions.:
The European Union must cut CO 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by 8%.
USA - by 7%.
Japan - by 6%.
The protocol provides for a system of quotas for greenhouse gas emissions. Its essence lies in the fact that each of the countries receives permission to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Thus, it is assumed that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by 5% over the next 15 years.
Since the implementation of this program will be designed for many years, it is necessary to designate the stages of its implementation, their deadlines, and provide for a system of control and reporting.
Russian scientists are also developing weapons against global warming. This is an aerosol of sulfur compounds, which is supposed to be sprayed into the lower layers of the atmosphere. The method being developed by Russian scientists involves spraying a thin layer of aerosol (0.25-0.5 microns) from various sulfur compounds into the lower layers of the stratosphere (at an altitude of 10-14 kilometers from the ground) using aircraft. Sulfur droplets will reflect solar radiation.
According to scientists, if one million tons of aerosol is sprayed over the Earth, this will reduce solar radiation by 0.5-1 percent, and air temperature by 1-1.5 degrees Celsius.
The amount of aerosol sprayed will need to be constantly maintained as sulfur compounds will sink to the ground over time.
Conclusion.
When studying global warming, I came to the conclusion that over the past 150 years there has been a change in the thermal regime by about 1-1.5 degrees. It has its own regional and temporal scales.
Many scientists believe that the main reason that possibly leads to these processes is an increase in CO 2 (carbon dioxide) in. It is called a "greenhouse gas." An increase in the content of gases such as freon and a number of halogen gases is also considered a consequence of human activities and the cause of ozone holes.
Studies have shown that in order to avoid a global catastrophe, it is necessary to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
I believe that the most important ways to solve this problem are: the introduction of environmentally friendly, low-waste and waste-free technologies, the construction of treatment facilities, the rational distribution of production and the use of natural resources.
I suggest to use biogas technologies.
Biogas is a decomposition product of organic substances of various origins (manure, food industry waste, other biological waste).
Biogas consists of 50-70% methane (CH 4) and 30-50% carbon dioxide (CO 2). It can be used as a fuel for heat and electricity. Biogas can be used in boiler plants (to generate heat), in gas turbines or in piston engines. Usually they operate in cogeneration mode - for the production of electricity and heat (see Fig. 13).
Raw materials for biogas plants are available in sufficient quantities at wastewater treatment plants, garbage dumps, pig farms, poultry farms, cowsheds. It is agricultural enterprises that can be considered the main consumer of biogas technologies. From a ton of manure, 30-50 m3 of biogas is obtained with a methane content of 60%. In fact, one cow is able to provide 2.5 cubic meters of gas per day. About 2 kW of electricity can be generated from one cubic meter of biogas. Plus, organic fertilizer is produced, which can be used in agriculture.
The principle of operation of the installation:
From livestock buildings 1 using self-alloying method, manure is moved to a receiving tank 2 , where the preparation of raw materials for loading into reactors for processing takes place. Then it is fed into the biogas plant 3 , where the biogas is released, which is fed into the gas distribution column 5 . It separates carbon dioxide and methane. Wastes are nitrogen fertilizers, they are taken to the fields 10. CO 2 goes to the production of biovitamin concentrate, and CH4 goes to the gas generator 9 , where it generates electricity, with which the pump works 11 supplying water for irrigation of fields and greenhouses 13 .
In the energy balance of European countries, biogas takes 3-4%. In Finland, Sweden and Austria, thanks to the state incentives for bioenergy, its share reaches 15-20%. There are 12 million small "family" biogas plants in China, supplying gas mainly to cooking stoves. This technology is widespread in India, Africa.In Russia, biogas plants are little used.
Bibliography.
Journal "Chemistry and Life" №4, 2007
Kriskunov E.A. Ecology (textbook), M. 1995
Pravda.ru
Revich B.A. "Russia in the surrounding world: 2004"
-
http://www.priroda.su/item/389
http://www.climatechange.ru/node/119
http://energyland.info
Into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels from 1800 to 2007 in billions of tons.
Figure 3 Between 1979 (left) and 2003 (right), the area covered by Arctic ice has noticeably decreased.
Fig.4 Climate reconstructions for the period 1000-2000 n. e., marked by the Little Ice Age
Rice. 5. The proportion of anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere during the greenhouse effect.
Fig.6 Photographs of the melting Pasterze glacier in Austria in 1875 (left) and 2004 (right).
Fig.7 Map of changes in the thickness of mountain glaciers since 1970. Thinning in orange and red colors, thickening in blue.
Fig.8. Melting ice shelf.
Fig.9 Graph of changes in ocean heat content for a 700-meter layer of water since 1955. Seasonal changes (red dots), annual averages (black line)
Fig.10. Study of global warming at different weather stations.
Rice. 11 Graph of changes in annual mean measurements of global sea level. Red: sea level since 1870; Blue colour: based on tide-adjusted sensors, black: based on satellite observations. Inset is the average global sea level rise since 1993, the period during which sea level rise has accelerated.
Rice. 12 Volumetric decline (in cubic miles) of glaciers worldwide.
Rice. 13 Diagram of a biogas plant.
Global warming will greatly affect the lives of some animals. For example, polar bears, seals and penguins will be forced to change their habitats as polar ice will disappear. Many species of animals and plants will also disappear, unable to adapt to the rapidly changing environment. 250 million years ago, global warming killed three-quarters of all life on Earth
Global warming will change the climate on a global scale. An increase in the number of climatic disasters, an increase in the number of floods due to hurricanes, desertification and a reduction in summer precipitation by 15-20% in the main agricultural areas are expected, an increase in the level and temperature of the ocean, and the boundaries of natural zones will shift to the north.
Moreover, according to some forecasts, global warming will trigger the onset of the Little Ice Age. In the 19th century, the cause of such a cooling was the eruption of volcanoes, in our century the reason is already different - the desalination of the world's oceans as a result of the melting of glaciers
How will global warming affect humans?
In the short term: shortage drinking water, an increase in infectious diseases, problems in agriculture due to droughts, an increase in the number of deaths due to floods, hurricanes, heat and drought.
The worst hit could be in the poorest countries, which are least responsible for exacerbating the problem and least prepared for climate change. Warming and rising temperatures, in the end, can reverse everything that was achieved by the work of previous generations.
The destruction of established and customary farming systems under the influence of droughts, irregular rainfall, etc. could actually push some 600 million people to the brink of starvation. By 2080, 1.8 billion people will experience severe water shortages. And in Asia and China, due to the melting of glaciers and changes in the nature of precipitation, an ecological crisis may occur.
An increase in temperature by 1.5-4.5°C will lead to a rise in the ocean level by 40-120 cm (according to some calculations, up to 5 meters). This means the flooding of many small islands and flooding in coastal areas. About 100 million inhabitants will be in flood-prone areas, more than 300 million people will be forced to migrate, some states will disappear (for example, the Netherlands, Denmark, part of Germany).
The World Health Organization (WHO) believes that the health of hundreds of millions of people could be at risk from the spread of malaria (due to the increase in the number of mosquitoes in flooded areas), intestinal infections (due to disrupted plumbing systems), etc.
In the long term, this may lead to the next stage of human evolution. Our ancestors faced a similar problem when the temperature rose sharply by 10°C after the ice age, but that is what led to the creation of our civilization.
Experts do not have accurate data on what is the contribution of humanity to the observed increase in temperatures on Earth and what a chain reaction could be.
Also, the exact relationship between the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increase in temperatures is not known. This is one of the reasons why temperature forecasts vary so much. And this gives food to skeptics: some scientists consider the problem of global warming somewhat exaggerated, as well as data on the increase in the average temperature on Earth.
Scientists do not have a common opinion about what the final balance of positive and negative effects of climate change can be, and according to what scenario the situation will develop further.
A number of scientists believe that several factors may weaken the effect of global warming: as temperatures rise, plant growth will accelerate, which will allow plants to take more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Others believe that the possible negative effects of global climate change are underestimated:
droughts, cyclones, storms and floods will become more frequent,
an increase in the temperature of the world's oceans also causes an increase in the strength of hurricanes,
the rate of glacier melt and ocean level rise will also be faster…. And this is confirmed by the latest research data.
Already, the ocean level has increased by 4 cm instead of the predicted 2 cm, the rate of glacier melting has increased by 3 times (the thickness of the ice cover has decreased by 60-70 cm, and the area of non-melting ice in the Arctic Ocean has decreased by 14% in 2008 alone).
It is possible that human activity has already doomed the ice cover to complete disappearance, which could result in a several times greater rise in ocean level (by 5-7 meters instead of 40-60 cm).
Moreover, according to some reports, global warming may come much faster than previously thought due to the release of carbon dioxide from ecosystems, including from the oceans.
And finally, we must not forget that after global warming, global cooling may come.
However, whatever the scenario, everything points to the fact that we must stop playing dangerous games with the planet and reduce our impact on it. It is better to overestimate the danger than to underestimate it. It is better to do everything possible to prevent it than to bite your elbows later. Who is warned is armed.
For more than a decade, the issue of the possibility of global warming has been at the center of attention 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. Heavily funded rallies and summits are held regularly in various parts of the globe, bringing together a well-established cohort of fighters against the impending disaster. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was presented by the fighters against global warming as the highest goal of the world community, and the United States and Russia, as the largest countries, who doubted the expediency of this step, were subjected to unprecedented pressure (as a result, we really managed to “put pressure”).
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 re-analyzing how big 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 changes environment to respond appropriately 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 not been able to add much: the prophecies of Nostradamus are as popular now as they were during the author's lifetime. And today, like thousands of years ago, the predicted period of the next universal catastrophe does not have time to pass, as a new one is already on the way. The atomic phobia of the 50s and 60s of the last century had hardly subsided, when the world learned about the impending "ozone" catastrophe, under sword of damocles which passed almost the entire end of the 20th century. But the ink under the Montreal Protocol to ban the production of chlorofluorocarbons had not yet dried (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and the true motives of the initiators), as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 heralded the world about an even more terrible threat of global warming.
Now this symbol of the coming retribution of mankind for the "excesses" and "sins" of industrialization successfully competes in the media with sensations from the life of pop stars and sports news. The apologists of "eco-religion" call on mankind to repent of their deeds and to devote all their strength and resources to atonement for sins, that is, to put a significant share of their current and future well-being on the altar of a new faith. But, as you know, when you are called to donate, you need to carefully monitor your wallet.
Although a political decision on the problem has already been made, it makes sense to discuss some fundamental issues. Still, before the serious economic consequences of warming, even under the most gloomy scenarios, there are still several decades. Besides, Russian authorities never sinned punctuality in observing the laws and fulfilling the obligations assumed. And as the wise Lao Tzu taught, it is often in the inaction of the rulers that good is for the subjects. Let's try to answer some of the most important questions:
How big is the actual observed climate change?
It is usually claimed that the temperature has risen by 0.6°C over the past century, although so far, apparently, there is not even a single method for determining this parameter. For example, satellite data give a lower value than ground-based measurements, only 0.2°C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of climatic observations made a hundred years ago, modern observations and the sufficient breadth of their geographical coverage. In addition, natural fluctuations of climate on a century scale, even with the constancy of all external parameters, are just about 0.4 ° C. So the threat is rather hypothetical.
Could the observed changes be due to natural causes?
This is one of the most painful questions for global warming fighters. There are many quite natural causes that cause such and even more noticeable climatic 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 the average surface temperature can reach 0.4 ° C (an article was devoted to this problem in " Nature”, 1990, v. 346, p. 713). In particular, due to the enormous thermal inertia of the ocean, chaotic changes in the atmosphere can cause an aftereffect that affects decades later. And in order for our attempts to influence the atmosphere to give 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 many times lower than the uncertainty in their assessment. In the IPCC draft report ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of 1995 reported that "any claim of significant climate change is debatable until the number of uncertain variables responsible for the natural variability of the climate system is reduced." And in the same place: “There are no studies that state with certainty that all or part of the recorded climate changes are caused by anthropogenic causes.” These words were later replaced by others: "The balance of evidence suggests a clear human impact on 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, the global temperature rose especially rapidly, and in the 1960s and 1970s, when the consumption of hydrocarbons grew rapidly, the global temperature, on the contrary, decreased. Despite a 30% increase in carbon fuel production from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s, the rate of increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide over this period slowed down sharply, and methane even began to decline.
The entire 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 time of the Vikings, this process has now just as suddenly stopped with the continued growth in production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emissions of hydrocarbons. According to two independent research groups from Australia, as well as from the USA and the Netherlands, the level of methane in the atmosphere has remained constant over the past four years.
And what are the natural climatic and atmospheric trends?
Supporters of emergency measures, for obvious reasons, do not like to discuss this issue either. Here we refer to the opinion of well-known domestic experts in this field (A.L. Yanshin, M.I. Budyko, Yu.A. Izrael. Global warming and its consequences: A strategy for measures taken. In: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Nauka, 2003).
“The study of changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the geological past has shown that over millions of years the trend towards a decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has prevailed.<...>This process led to a decrease in the average temperature of the lower air layer 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 at middle latitudes, as well as aridization (desertification. — Note. ed.) vast territories in 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 were especially pronounced in ice ages Pleistocene, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere repeatedly approached 200 ppm. This concentration is slightly higher than critical values concentrations, one of which corresponds to the glaciation of the entire planet, and the other to a decrease in photosynthesis to the limits that make the existence of autotrophic plants impossible.<...>Without touching on the details of the distant 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 is threatened in the future climate catastrophe, then not due to an excessive increase, but, on the contrary, due to a decrease in temperature! Recall that, according to modern geological concepts, we live just 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 an ever-increasing amount of coal, oil and other types of carbon fuel, man has embarked on the path of restoring the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the warm epochs of the geological past.<...>Man unintentionally stopped the process of carbon dioxide depletion, which is dangerous for wildlife, the main resource in the creation of organic matter autotrophic plants, 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?
Under various scenarios, the expected change in mean temperature by the end of the century ranges from a 10°C increase to a decrease relative to present-day levels. Usually operate as the "most likely" average value of 2-3 ° C, although this value does not become more reasonable from averaging. In fact, such a forecast should take into account not only the main 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 a 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 man-caused and social development 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 determining branches of the modern economy are energy, raw materials, heavy and chemical industries. The capital costs in these industries are so high that the equipment is almost always used until the resource is fully depleted - about 30 years. Consequently, the industrial and energy plants that are now being put into operation 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 guess more than 30 years ahead. As a curious example showing the price of bolder forecasts, the fears of futurologists are often recalled. late XIX century, predicting 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 spending, humanity will have enough of these resources for about a century, and a decrease in oil production is expected in the next ten years. Given 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 mankind faced such large-scale climate change before?
Oh yeah! And with what! 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 economic activity. primitive man- a hunter for mammoths and large ungulates of the tundra fauna. However, humanity not only survived, but it was thanks to this event, having found a worthy response to the challenge of nature, that it rose to a new level, creating a civilization.
As the example of our ancestors shows, the increase in global temperature does not pose a real threat to the existence of mankind (and even more so to life on Earth, as it is sometimes claimed). The consequences of the large-scale restructuring of the climate expected today can be quite well imagined by considering the Pliocene epoch relatively close to us (the period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct human ancestors appeared. The average surface temperature then exceeded the modern one by more than 1°C. 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.
Significant climate changes also occurred during the historical period of the existence of civilization: this was shown by the data of 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 pastoralism in the Sahara, the civilization of Mesopotamia, the Tangut kingdom in northern China; more details on the role of climate change in the history of culture can be found 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 real rise in the ocean 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 ocean level is expected to rise by no more than 88 cm, which is unlikely to disrupt world economy. Such a rise in sea levels can only cause the gradual migration of a small part of the world's population - a phenomenon much less tragic than the annual death from starvation of tens of millions of people. 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 that time, and whether this problem will be among the urgent ones?
So far, the expected annual damage to the global economy due to the projected increase in temperature by 2050 is estimated at only $300 billion. This is less than 1% of the current global GDP. And what will the fight against warming cost?
Institute "World Watch" ( World Watch Institute) in Washington believes that it is necessary to introduce a "carbon tax" in the amount of 50 dollars. per 1 ton of carbon in order to stimulate the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, improve technologies for its combustion and resource conservation. But according to the same institute, such a tax would 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 be from 70 to 660 dollars. for 1 t.
The costs of fulfilling the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are estimated at 1-2% of world GDP, while the assessment of the positive effect does not exceed 1.3%. In addition, climate models predict that a much larger reduction in emissions will be required to stabilize the climate than the return to 1990 levels envisaged by the protocol.
Here we come to another fundamental issue. Activists of the "green" movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental protection 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 industrial 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, such as solar panels, agricultural machines, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen, etc., in most cases turns out to be more dangerous, than coal power.
“Until now, in the view 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 dumps. Indeed, the contribution to environmental poisoning of such industries as metallurgy, the chemical industry, and energy is great. But no less dangerous for the biosphere are idyllic agricultural lands, well-groomed forest parks and city lawns. The openness of the local circulation as a result of human economic activity means that the existence of a site 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, a lake or a river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circulation of substances with productivity brought to a maximum, is much more dangerous for the biosphere as a whole than an abandoned land turned into a desert ”(from V.G. Gorshkov’s book“ Physical and Biological Fundamentals sustainability of life". M.: VINITI, 1995).
Therefore, in the global ecology, the strategy of preventive measures is not applicable. It is necessary to quantify the optimal balance between the desired result and the cost 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 produce this ton when burned is less than $100 (recall that 1 ton of hydrocarbon 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 US for 1 million dollars. of the produced GDP, 240 tons of CO 2 are emitted (in other countries it is much more, for example, in Russia - five times!), and most of GDP falls on non-manufacturing, that is, non-CO 2 emitting industries. It turns out that the cost of 300 dollars. for the utilization of 1 ton of carbon dioxide will lead to an additional emission of at least several hundred kilograms of the same CO 2 . Thus, we run the risk of launching a giant machine, idly burning our already scarce energy resources. Apparently, such calculations prompted the United States to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
But there is also a fundamentally different approach. Instead of wasting energy and resources on fighting the inevitable, we need to evaluate whether it would be cheaper to adapt to change, to try to benefit from it. And then it will turn out that the reduction of the land surface due to its partial flooding will more than pay off with an increase in the used territory in the same Siberia, and eventually in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as by increasing the overall productivity of the biosphere. Increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the air will be beneficial for most crops. This becomes clear if we remember that the genera, which include modern cultivated plants, appeared in the early Pliocene and late Miocene, when the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 0.4%, that is, it was an order of magnitude higher than the modern one. It has been experimentally shown that doubling the concentration of CO 2 in atmospheric air can lead to a 30% increase in the yield of some crops, and this is extremely important for the rapidly growing world population.
Who and why is in favor of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
The most active position in the fight against global warming is occupied by Western European politicians and the public. To understand the reasons for such an emotional attitude of Europeans to this problem, it is enough to look at geographical map. Western Europe located in the same latitude as Siberia. But what a climate contrast! In Stockholm, on 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 worried about global warming and the fate of the population of Bangladesh, which is at risk of being left without a territory, but a local cooling in Western Europe, which may be the result of a restructuring of oceanic and atmospheric flows with a significant increase in global temperature. Although now no one is 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 take, as a rule, the toughest and most uncompromising position in the negotiations on these issues. But we also need to understand what their motives are. Do we really take the fate of Western Europeans so close to our hearts that we are ready to sacrifice our future for the sake of preserving their well-being? By the way, in warmer Siberia there will be enough room for all Europeans, and maybe the new settlers will finally equip it.
There is also a more prosaic reason forcing the 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. An acute shortage of energy is forcing Europeans to actively introduce expensive energy-saving technologies, and this undermines their competitiveness in the world market. From this point of view, the Kyoto Protocol is a stroke of genius: to impose potential competitors the same strict energy consumption standards, 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 Western European competitors. China, India and other developing countries, the main competitors of the industrial powers of the Old World, including Russia, are also. It seems that only we are not afraid that as a result of the signing of 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 most severe on the globe. The weather in the northern countries of Europe is made 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 why, per unit of GDP produced, Russia spends five times more energy (and produces more CO2!) than the US and European countries. For a country, more than 60% of whose territory is located in the permafrost zone, which reaches almost to our southern border in Transbaikalia, it is somehow ridiculous to fight the warming. According to economists, a one degree increase in the average annual temperature 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 such a doubling has been officially proclaimed by the president 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. There is also no point in seriously considering the possibility of making money on the "air trade" (that is, CO 2 emission quotas). Firstly, we are already placed at the very end of a long line of potential sellers, after all the new EU members, countries North Africa and the Middle East. Secondly, at the appointed price of 5 euros for a quota of 1 ton of CO 2 (at a real price of 300 dollars!) the proceeds will not be comparable with our current oil and gas exports. And thirdly, given the predicted rates 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 do not voluntarily limit our economic development.
Such a 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 date, this led to the almost complete elimination of the 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 conservation is by no means the most forte We don’t have Russian energy and our own energy-saving technologies ...
The flagrant 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 the Earth's forests) accumulate 323 Gt of carbon per year. No other ecosystem on Earth can compare with them in this. According to modern concepts, tropical rainforests, sometimes referred to as the "lungs of the planet", absorb about the same amount of CO 2 as is released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the forests of the temperate zone north of 30 ° N. sh. store 26% of the Earth's carbon (http://epa.gov/climatechange/). This alone allows Russia to demand a special approach - for example, the allocation of funds by the world community to compensate for the damage from the restriction of economic activity and the protection of nature in these regions.
Will warming be prevented by the measures envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol?
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, then by 2100 the concentration of carbon dioxide could increase by 30-150% compared to current levels. This may 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 will certainly cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activity. However, assuming that the conditions of the protocol are met by reducing CO 2 emissions, the reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration compared to the scenario in which emissions are not regulated at all will be from 20 to 80 ppm by 2100. At the same time, to stabilize its concentration at a level of at least 550 ppm, a reduction of at least 170 ppm is necessary. In all scenarios considered, 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 "environmental ideals". But isn't the price of a demonstration too high?
Is the problem of global warming the most important of those that humanity is currently facing?
Another unpleasant question for the advocates of "environmental ideals". The fact that the third world has long lost interest in this problem was clearly shown by the 2002 summit in Johannesburg, whose participants stated that the fight against poverty and hunger is more important for humanity than climate change, which is possible in the distant future. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly understand the whole background of what is 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 emissions of greenhouse gases 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?
Man's conflict with Nature is by no means a consequence of our "environmental uncleanliness". Its essence lies in the violation of the biospheric balance by civilization, and from this point of view, both pastoral-patriarchal agriculture and the dream of the "greens" - "renewable" energy are no less a threat than the loudly cursed industrialization. According to the estimates given in the already mentioned book by V.G. Gorshkov, in order to maintain the stability of the biosphere, civilization should not consume more than 1% of the net primary production of the global biota. The current direct consumption of land biosphere 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 seeks to use the potential accumulated by Nature as a resource for its development. And for the system of natural regulators, debugged over billions of years of existence of the biosphere, the activity of Civilization is a perturbing influence, which 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 in accelerating the processes of transformation of matter and energy. Only it can support sustainable development 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, more and more complex biological, and then historical and technological forms organization of matter. This is the basic principle of evolution, which cannot be canceled or circumvented. Accordingly, our civilization will either stop in its development and die (and then something else will inevitably arise in its place, but similar in essence), or it will evolve, processing more and more 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 traveled a long and difficult path, as a result of which they fit perfectly into the surrounding nature - but paid for this by stopping their development. Such a path can be regarded only as a time-out on the eve of a qualitative change in the nature of civilization.
Another way is to take over all management functions natural processes, replacing the biospheric mechanism of homeostasis with an artificial one, that is, creating a technosphere. It is on this path, perhaps not fully realizing it, that the supporters of climate regulation are pushing us. But the amount of information circulating in the technosphere is many orders of magnitude inferior to that circulating in the biosphere, so the reliability of such technosphere regulation is still too low to guarantee salvation from death for humanity. Having started with the artificial regulation of the “dying” ozone layer, we are already forced to think about the negative consequences of an excess of atmospheric ozone. And the attempt to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases is only the beginning of an endless and hopeless search to replace natural biospheric regulators with artificial ones.
The third and most realistic way is the co-evolution (according to N.N. Moiseev) of Nature and Civilization, a mutual adaptive transformation. What the outcome will be, we do not know. But it can be assumed 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 real problems facing the multi-billion population of the planet, on the verge of a fundamental change in the nature of Civilization and its relationship with Nature, the attempt to regulate the climate is likely to come to naught in a natural way, as soon as it comes to real costs. On the example of the ozone history, Russia already has bad experience participation in decision global problems. And it would be good for us not to repeat the mistakes once made, because if the domestic energy sector suffers the fate of the domestic refrigeration industry, even the worst global warming will not save us.
This is an increase in the average temperature on Earth, which has been recorded since the end of the 19th century. Over land and ocean since the beginning of the 20th century, it has risen by an average of 0.8 degrees.
Scientists believe that by the end of the 21st century, the temperature may rise by an average of 2 degrees (a negative forecast is 4 degrees).
But the increase is quite small, does it really affect something?
All climate changes that we feel ourselves are the consequences of global warming. This is what has happened on Earth over the past century.
- On all continents, there are more hot days and fewer cold days.
- Global sea level has risen by 14 centimeters. The area of glaciers is shrinking, they are melting, the water is desalinated, the movement of ocean currents is changing.
- As the temperature increased, the atmosphere began to hold more moisture. This has led to more frequent and more powerful storms, especially in North America and Europe.
- In some regions of the world (Mediterranean, West Africa) there are more droughts, in others (midwest USA, northwest Australia), on the contrary, they have become less.
What caused global warming?
Additional entry into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases: methane, carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone. They absorb long waves infrared radiation without releasing them into space. Because of this, a greenhouse effect forms on Earth.
Global warming has provoked the rapid development of industry. The more emissions from enterprises, the more actively deforestation takes place (and they absorb carbon dioxide), the more greenhouse gases accumulate. And the more the Earth warms up.
What can all this lead to?
Scientists predict that further global warming can intensify processes that are detrimental to people, provoke droughts, floods, and the lightning spread of dangerous diseases.
- Due to rising sea levels, many settlements located in the coastal zone will be flooded.
- The consequences of storms will become more global.
- The rainy seasons will become longer, leading to more floods.
- The duration of dry periods will also increase, which threatens with powerful droughts.
- Tropical cyclones will become stronger: the wind speed will be higher, precipitation - more abundant.
- The combination of higher temperatures and drought will make it difficult to grow some crops.
- Many animal species will migrate in order to maintain their familiar habitats. Some of them may disappear altogether. For example, ocean acidification, which absorbs carbon dioxide (it is released when fossil fuels are burned), kills oysters and coral reefs, worsens the conditions for the existence of predators.
Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are also provoked by global warming?
According to one version, warming in the Arctic is to blame for the formation of destructive hurricanes. It created an atmospheric "blockade" - it slowed down the circulation of jet streams in the atmosphere. Because of this, powerful "slow-moving" storms were formed, which absorbed a huge amount of moisture. But there is not enough evidence for this theory yet.
Many climatologists rely on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, according to which an atmosphere with a higher temperature contains more moisture, and therefore conditions arise for the formation of more powerful storms. The water temperature in the ocean where Harvey formed is about 1 degree above average.
Approximately according to the same pattern, hurricane Irma was formed. The process began in warm waters off the coast of West Africa. For 30 hours, the elements intensified to the third category (and then to the highest, fifth). Meteorologists have recorded such a rate of formation for the first time in two decades.
Are we waiting for what was described in the film "The Day After Tomorrow"?
Scientists believe that such hurricanes may become the norm. True, climatologists do not yet predict an instant global cooling, as in the film.
Extreme weather events have already taken first place in the top five global risks for 2017, announced at the World Economic Forum. 90% of the biggest economic losses in the world today are due to floods, hurricanes, floods, heavy rains, hail, droughts.
Okay, but why was this summer so cold in Russia with global warming?
One does not interfere. Scientists have developed a model that explains this.
Global warming has led to an increase in temperature in the Arctic Ocean. The ice began to actively melt, the circulation of air flows changed, and with them the seasonal patterns of atmospheric pressure distribution changed.
Previously, the weather in Europe was made by the Arctic Oscillation with the seasonal Azores High (a high pressure area) and the Icelandic Low. Between these two areas, a west wind was formed, which brought warm air from the Atlantic.
But due to rising temperatures, the pressure difference between the Azores High and the Icelandic Low has narrowed. Air masses increasingly began to move not from west to east, but along the meridians. Arctic air can penetrate deep south and bring cold.
Is it worth it for the people of Russia to pack an alarming suitcase in case of similarity to "Harvey"?
If there is a desire, . Who is warned is armed. This summer, hurricanes were recorded in many Russian cities, the likes of which have not been seen in strength for the past 100 years.
According to Roshydromet, in 1990-2000, 150-200 dangerous hydrometeorological phenomena were recorded in our country, which caused damage. Today, their number exceeds 400, and the consequences are becoming more devastating.
Global warming is manifested not only in climate change. For several years, scientists from the A. A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics have been warning about the danger for cities and towns in northern Russia.
Huge funnels have formed here, from which explosive methane can be released.
Previously, these funnels were heaving mounds: an underground "storage" of ice. But due to global warming, they have melted. The voids were filled with gas hydrates, the release of which is similar to an explosion.
A further increase in temperature can exacerbate the process. It poses a particular danger to Yamal and the cities located close to it: Nadym, Salekhard, Novy Urengoy.
Can global warming be stopped?
Yes, if the energy system is completely rebuilt. Today, about 87% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas).
To reduce the amount of emissions, it is necessary to use low-carbon energy sources: wind, sun, geothermal processes (occurring in the bowels of the earth).
Another way is to develop carbon capture, where carbon dioxide is extracted from emissions from power plants, refineries and other industries and pumped underground.
What's stopping you from doing it?
There are a number of reasons for this: political (defending the interests of certain companies), technological (alternative energy is considered too expensive) and others.
The most active "producers" of greenhouse gases are China, USA, EU countries, India, Russia.
If emissions can still be significantly reduced, there is a chance to stop global warming at around 1 degree.
But if there are no changes, the average temperature may rise by 4 degrees or more. And in this case, the consequences will be irreversible and disastrous for humanity.
Global warming- the most acute climate problem causing significant changes in the natural balance in the world. According to the report of Leonid Zhindarev (a researcher at the Faculty of Geography of Moscow State University), by the end of the 21st century, the level of the World Ocean will rise by one and a half to two meters, which will lead to catastrophic consequences. Approximate calculations show that 20% of the world's population will be left homeless. The most fertile will be flooded coastal zones, many islands with thousands of people will disappear from the world map.
Global warming has been monitored since the beginning of the last century. It is noted that the average air temperature on the planet increased by one degree - 90% of the increase in temperature occurred in the period from 1980 to 2016, when the heyday of industrial industry. It is also worth noting that these processes are theoretically irreversible - in the distant future, the air temperature may increase so much that there will be practically no glaciers left on the planet.
Causes of global warming
Global warming is a large-scale uncontrolled increase in the average annual air temperature on our planet. According to latest research, the trend towards a global increase in air temperature has persisted throughout the history of the Earth's development. The climate system of the planet readily reacts to any external factors, which leads to a change in thermal cycles - the well-known ice ages are replaced by extremely warm times.
Among the main reasons for such fluctuations are the following:
- natural change in the composition of the atmosphere;
- solar luminosity cycles;
- planetary variations (changes in the Earth's orbit);
- volcanic eruptions, carbon dioxide emissions.
For the first time global warming was noted in prehistoric times, when the cold climate was replaced by a hot tropical one. Then this was facilitated by the exuberant growth of breathing fauna, which led to an increase in carbon dioxide levels. In turn, the increased temperature caused more intense evaporation of water, which further intensified the processes of global warming.
Thus, the first ever climate change was caused by a significant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. At the moment, the following substances are known to contribute to the greenhouse effect:
- methane and other hydrocarbons;
- suspended soot particles;
- water vapor.
Causes of the greenhouse effect
If we talk about modern realities, then approximately 90% of the entire temperature balance depends on the greenhouse effect, which is produced by the consequences of human activity. Over the past 100 years, the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere have increased by almost 150% - the highest concentration in the last million years. About 80% of all emissions into the atmosphere are the result of industrial activities (extraction and combustion of hydrocarbons, heavy industry, etc.).
It is also worth noting the significantly increased concentration of solid particles - dust and some others. They increase the heating of the earth's surface, increase the absorption of energy by the surface of the oceans, which leads to an increase in temperature throughout the Earth. Thus, the cause of modern global warming can be considered human activity. Other factors, such as changes in the activity of the Sun, do not have the desired effect.
Consequences of a global increase in temperature
The International Commission (IPEC) has published a working report that reflects possible scenarios for the consequences associated with global warming. The main motive of the report is that the trend towards an increase in the average annual temperature will continue, humanity is unlikely to be able to compensate for its influence on the planet's climate processes. It should be noted that the relationship between climate change and the state of ecosystems is currently poorly understood, so most of the forecasts are assumed.
Among all the expected consequences, one has been reliably established - the rise in the level of the World Ocean. As of 2016, an annual increase in the water level by 3-4 mm was noted. The increase in the average annual air temperature causes the emergence of two factors:
- melting glaciers;
- thermal expansion of water.
If current climate trends continue, by the end of the 21st century, the level of the World Ocean will rise by a maximum of two meters. In the next few centuries, its level may reach five meters above the present.
The melting of glaciers will change the chemical composition of the water, as well as the distribution of precipitation. An increase in the number of floods, hurricanes and other extreme disasters is expected. In addition, there will be a global change in ocean currents - for example, the Gulf Stream has already changed its direction, which has led to certain consequences in a number of countries.
Can't be overestimated. In the countries of the tropical regions, there will be a catastrophic decline in agricultural productivity. The most fertile regions will be flooded, which may eventually lead to mass starvation. However, it is worth noting that such serious consequences are expected not earlier than in a few hundred years - humanity has enough time to take appropriate measures.
Solving the problem of global warming and its consequences
At the international level, the fight against global warming is limited by the lack of common agreements and control measures. The main document that regulates climate change countermeasures is the Kyoto Protocol. In general, the level of responsibility in the fight against global warming can be assessed positively.
Industry standards are constantly being improved, new environmental standards are being adopted that regulate industrial production. The level of emissions into the atmosphere is reduced, glaciers are taken under protection, and ocean currents are constantly monitored. According to climate scientists, maintaining the current environmental campaign will help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30-40% by next year.
It is worth noting the increase in the participation of private companies in the fight against global warming. For example, British millionaire Richard Branson announced a scientific tender for The best way prevention of global warming. The winner will receive an impressive sum of $25 million. According to Branson, humanity must take responsibility for its actions. At the moment, several dozen applicants have been registered, offering their own solutions to this problem..
