Home Garden on the windowsill Fighting global warming with improvised means. Warm but dirty

Garden on the windowsill

Fighting global warming with improvised means. Warm but dirty

Mankind, oddly enough, can not only destroy the planet, but also protect it. Global warming is too big a problem to tackle alone, but with the help of "green" actions carried out by you personally, you can make a small difference, but also inspire others to do the same. And this article will tell you how to deal with global warming on a personal level.

Making political decisions

Changing consumer habits

Eat vegetarian or vegan food. Livestock is the source greenhouse gases, surpassing in this sense the entire transport of the planet. Here, however, not only livestock is involved, but the whole process of meat production - from the creation of fertilizers, to growing grain and transporting it to feeders, and so on. With what more people those who follow a vegetarian diet, the less water is wasted in the agricultural sector and the more favorable the situation in terms of biodiversity becomes.
- If you eat meat, eat locally grown meat that is not imported from far away.
- Eat meat and vegetables grown on small farms, not those products that were produced on large industries where practices that are detrimental to the environment are used.
Reuse things more often. It is worthwhile to carefully approach the issue of recycling and processing. Dispose of glass, plastic, paper, cardboard and other recyclable waste in designated trash bins. Convince your neighbors and friends to do the same (especially since there are those who don't).
- Cloth bags are a great alternative to paper or plastic bags when you go shopping.
- It makes sense to put food waste in the compost, and not throw it in the trash.
Use refill. Instead of buying a new bottle of water, fill up an empty one instead. So it’s good for the environment, and it’s good for your wallet.
Buy products with a minimum of packaging. From this, you will not only produce less waste, but also reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere, not to mention significant savings. And if it seems to you that some product is completely in vain packaged like an onion, then it makes sense to call the manufacturing company and express your opinion and offer your options.
Waste less paper. Before you click on the “print” button, think carefully - is it worth it? And at the bottom of their emails put signatures that remind recipients of this as well.
- Use drafts! And on them you can make shopping lists, notes, write down phone numbers and so on. Throw away only the paper on which it is simply impossible to write.
- If you print something, then print on sheets of recycled paper. Remember, each ream of paper is an emission of harmful substances into the atmosphere.
Buy local food. The meaning is simple - the closer to carry food, the less energy and fuel is spent and the less harm to the environment. But food accounts for almost half of all carbon dioxide, one way or another emitted into the atmosphere due to the average family.
- If you also inspire your neighbors, then sooner or later your demand will determine the supply on the market and change the situation for the better!
- Buy groceries at markets or small private shops with local suppliers. Better there than the big chain stores.
- Buy goods in small local shops, and not in supermarkets.
- Would you like a snack? Go to a local restaurant or cafe, not to chain restaurants.
Track how much carbon is being produced because of you. This can be done using a special calculator that calculates how much your lifestyle costs the environment. This will add an element of visibility to your fight against global warming.
- On the Internet you can find calculators adapted for people living in a particular country.
- Some products have a special logo - “Carbon counted” - which says that during the production of this product, the environment was at least remembered. As a rule, next to the logo is a number indicating how much carbon production has cost nature. Buy those products that have this number as low as possible. Form the right demand, manage the market!

Reduce your energy consumption

We use green transport

Plant trees. Foliage, remember, absorbs carbon dioxide. There are even organizations that help people in this regard.
Try to consume less, save more and spend less. Rent videos and games, don't buy them, or at least use them. By analogy - with books, since no one has closed libraries yet.
Responsibly treat the consumption of electricity in your office. In many organizations, air conditioners and computers are left on overnight. Discuss this issue with competent comrades.
Grow fast growing plants. Let's say bamboo - it not only grows fast, but also produces a third more oxygen than oak or birch, not to mention the fact that it requires less fertilizer and attention. Make sure the plants can grow in your area. Give preference to native species and do not plant anything potentially dangerous. With the same bamboo in the US, you have to be careful, by the way.
Try to use more tap water than bottled water. This will reduce the energy required for bottling and transporting water.

The outcome of the Durban Conference on Global Warming COP17 was the rejection of the mandatory introduction of agreements on harmful emissions into the atmosphere. This gives reason to think that the opinions of politicians and scientists about ways to prevent climate change have diverged. But while politicians are making such decisions, environmentalists are coming up with bold and even crazy ways to save the planet.

Geoengineering (large-scale developments to manage environment preventing anthropogenic changes in the atmosphere) long time was presented as a way to counter global warming, but later it was recognized as dangerous, since it is a direct intervention in the delicate ecosystems of the world. We will talk about several ways to prevent climate change, which are offered by environmental scientists from around the world.

Dam in the mediterranean sea

German architect Hermann Sergel designed the ambitious plan, also known as Atlantropa, to install a hydroelectric dam in the Strait of Gibraltar. This would make it possible not only to generate great amount electricity without harmful emissions, but also to reduce the level mediterranean sea at 200 meters. As a result, the open parts of the Adriatic Sea would be available for settlement and maintenance. Agriculture. plan to prevent global warming, was widely discussed in the 1920s and 30s, but was not put into practice for obvious practical reasons.

A former professor at the University of Minnesota noted in 1997 that as a result of the diversion of the channels of some rivers, such as the Nile, the Mediterranean Sea has exhausted its resources. fresh water causing it to evaporate and become saltier, thereby contributing to global warming. Mediterranean salt water through the Strait of Gibraltar enters the deep waters of the Atlantic, causing a global environmental problem. This problem is that Mediterranean water mixes with very cold water in the Atlantic and moves northward with currents.

Usually the warm currents of Europe are not affected, but if the outflow of water is changed by a dam - warm water would go west into the seas of Canada, which would increase snowfall, expanding the country's ice fields. Are you calling for a stop to freezing the northern hemisphere and expanding territories for a growing population? Set up a barrier across the Strait of Gibraltar!

Protective layer for Greenland

Wrap Greenland (most big Island in the world) into a protective layer - sounds wild and impractical - but that's exactly what Dr. Jason Box, an ice researcher at Ohio State University, suggests. D. Box believes that covering the country's glaciers with layers of thermal protection will prevent the sun's rays from melting the glacial layers. For your information, the universities of Innsbruck and Zurich are already using this technology in the Alps on the Zugspitze glacier.

This theory was tested by Box and his team in the framework of documentary film on the Discovery Channel. 31 giant rolls of specially designed white polypropylene layer were used, covering an area of 10,000 square meters. Interestingly, the foil is not suitable for these purposes, as it negatively affects the isolation of objects under it. Thermal insulation layers absorb heat from above, which prevents it from reaching the ice, and thus keeping it intact.

There should be more clouds

Last year, NASA and Bill Gates joined forces to create a machine that sprays sea water and creating clouds that reflect sunlight far from the earth. This is to prevent global warming. The machine can suck in more than ten tons of water per second and then spray it at over 3,000 feet, increasing the density of the clouds. Such a device could prevent climate change, but studies have shown that this would require 1,900 sprays, costing more than $7 billion.

Death Valley Flooding

It is estimated that sea levels could rise by as much as 28 inches in a century. Some scholars find it expedient to flood the deserts, thus raising the water level by 67 feet, and draining the seas into the deserts will prevent populated areas from flooding. The Urfan Depression and Death Valley could potentially contain millions of gallons of water - since they are below sea level. But there is only one problem - when all the glaciers melt - it will lower the sea level by 2.5 pounds - and this is a global catastrophe.

"Solar shield" to protect the Earth

This list of crazy ideas wouldn't be complete without one more such plan. Professor Roger Angela designed a trillion lens design - a massive 100,000 square mile "sun screen". In his opinion, this will help deflect the sun's rays by 20% and maintain ground ventilation. In addition to taking years to plan a shuttle mission, this project, which was supposed to prevent global warming, would cost more than $350 trillion - 12% of the gross national income.

Like this article? Then, press.

Epigraph: “Whatever they tell you - we are talking about money" (Todd's principle)

Forewarning: what does the planet Venus have to do with it, it will be clear closer to the finale.

The essence of the business idea: humanity burns hydrocarbon fossil fuels (coal, oil), and saturates the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it delays infrared (thermal) rays, preventing them from scattering into space. This leads to the fact that the climate of the planet Earth becomes warmer. If these greenhouse emissions are not reduced, the glaciers will melt, the world's oceans will rise, flooding part of the continents, unbearable heat will fall on the remaining land, in short: everyone will die.

Business Process: At the international level, a number of protocols are signed that limit CO2 emissions to certain quotas and reduction commitments. Those entities that have excess allowances can (WARNING!) sell these allowances to those entities that burn so much that they do not have enough CO2 allowances. And an international fund is being created to finance the fight against CO2 on our planet. In particular (ATTENTION!) Allocating grants to scientists - for the relevant science.
(See Kyoto Protocol 1997 and Paris Protocol 2015).
In fact, this business process started in the 2000s.

Issue price: Al Gore (Vice President of the United States in 1993 - 2001, central figure in the fight against CO2, laureate Nobel Prize world 2007 for this fight) increased personal fortune from $2 million to about $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2-quotas by 2010 reached 120 billion dollars, and continues to grow vigorously. This is what it really means to make money out of thin air!

What does science say? Those scientists who receive grants for the fight against CO2, of course, say that it is CO2 that causes the greenhouse effect, and this is a threat to humanity. Those scientists who do not count on these grants are talking about a pseudoscientific scam.

Andrey Kapitsa and Jonathan Moldavanov: “Global warming and ozone holes are scientific myths”:
"For many years ex-president US Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz (Seitz) drew attention to the fact that all theories of global warming and ozone holes are far-fetched and do not correspond to reality, that this is - anti-scientific theories. 17,000 American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a real threat to humanity and a heavy blow to its future.
*Note: A.P. Kapitsa is referring to the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.

Alexander Gorodnitsky "The end of the myth of global warming":
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the reduction of emissions into the atmosphere of the so-called "greenhouse gases", and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases allegedly lead to an increase greenhouse effect and significant warming of the Earth's climate.

Both of these materials, and many other materials on climate skepticism (the movement of scientists who refute the doctrine of greenhouse global warming) are available on the Internet, and you can read the detailed arguments.

And we will try to understand objectively the case of climate change and the man-made factor - greenhouse gases (in particular, carbon dioxide - CO2, around which the Kyoto Protocol machine revolves). Buddhas don't burn pots - we can do it.

Let's start with simple question: Is there a greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, and what gases cause it?
Answer: The greenhouse effect exists. It is associated with the property of certain gases, in particular: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) to absorb infrared (thermal) radiation emanating from the relatively warm surface of the planet, preventing it from dissipating into relatively cold space.
What greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere in significant quantities?
The answer is H2O (about 1 percent) and CO2 (about 0.04 percent).
So: there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide.
And no one argues that the greenhouse effect is created mainly by water vapor.
Why then did not H2O, but CO2 become the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?

There is no clear physical explanation for this political phenomenon.
But there is a clear economic explanation.
An attempt to declare a global fight against water vapor emissions would look like idiocy, and even propaganda on TV would not help here. It is known that about a cubic kilometer of water per minute evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans. This is a billion tons (gigaton). This is how 2.26*10^12 MJ (mega-joules) of energy is transferred in the form of heat of evaporation: 1000 times more than the energy consumption of the entire human civilization in the same minute. An attempt by the climate shop at the UN to regulate H2O emissions would be commented on by Aesop's famous phrase: "Drink the sea, Xanthus." A global economic H2O quota scam would not work.

Original source: https://alex-rozoff.livejournal.com/45102.html
- Due to these emissions, the CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- It increased the greenhouse effect. As a result, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e. over the period from the beginning intensive combustion fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, temperatures could rise by about 6 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
- Next - see thrillers about the thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.

Let's look at this and pose the question: before our civilization - why did global warmings occur after the ice ages, which happened on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And a more local question: why did small warmings occur after small glaciations in the already historical period, but before the machine civilization. Good famous example: In the 10th century, the Vikings, traveling from Iceland to the west, discovered Greenland and Newfoundland. These were areas with a warm temperate climate, and Newfoundland even grew grapes. At present, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century fell on warming (historians call it the "medieval climatic optimum"). And the warming has done without industrial emissions of CO2.

The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remarks. Although all prehistoric warmings happened without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And there is a well-founded reason for this. scientific theory, according to which the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a consequence of warming (we will return to the mechanism of this increase a little later). The warming itself is due to completely different factors.

There is a powerful regular factor: the flow radiant energy from the sun. He, in a complex periodic law depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-term fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles can be named (the duration of which, respectively: about 100, about 200, and about 2300 years).
2) Orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in illumination angles due to Lunar-Solar precession (Milankovitch cycles with periods of 10 thousand years, 26 thousand years, and 93 thousand years).

There are irregular factors - eruptions of super-volcanoes and the fall of large asteroids. They cause emissions of fine dust, which remains in the upper atmosphere for a long time and shields sunlight. This mechanism worked on a relatively small time scale in 1816 (the so-called year without summer) after the eruption of Tambor. Calculations of the possible depth of cooling are known from the so-called. "nuclear winter models".

These factors really determine the climate of the Earth, in particular, the average temperature. Now let's look at what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to an experiment on a simple physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) Bucket with hot water(moderately hot, without extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can Borj, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
We put the first bottle in the cold, and the second in heat.
I'm waiting for an hour.
Next - open both bottles and visually and evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily come out of the first bottle, and a foam fountain is likely to come out of the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.

The oceans are a kind of bottle filled with 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of mineralized water (or, in mass units: 1.35 billion gigatonnes). A number of gases are dissolved in water.
In particular, the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean exceeds 100,000 gigatons.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2 thousand gigatons (50 - 60 times less than in the ocean).
During periods of constant average temperature on the planet, an equilibrium is established between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean.
With global cooling, the equilibrium shifts towards dissolved CO2.
With global warming, the equilibrium shifts towards atmospheric CO2.

So: the currently observed increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is a consequence (and not a cause) of global warming. We can say that this addition of CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, creating a secondary factor in global warming. But such a contribution is very insignificant compared to the primary factor (an increase in the flux of radiant energy from the Sun). If we discuss the secondary factor of the greenhouse effect, then it is necessary to consider the contribution not of CO2, but of H2O - the predominant greenhouse gas (see above). As the temperature rises, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which means it traps a large proportion of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface. The "water" greenhouse process has back side, but more on that later.

Now let's return to CO2 and estimate the scale of the technogenic (anthropogenic) factor in the circulation of this gas.
So: there are 2,000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere right now, and this amount completes a full cycle in about 4 years. 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year enters the atmosphere through the processes of release from the ocean, and the processes of decomposition of organic matter in the biosphere. The same amount - 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year is bound in the process of photosynthesis.
Industry (as mentioned) emits 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.
When these 30 gigatons are indicated after 500 gigatonnes of the biological cycle, such a "contribution of the" anthropogenic factor to carbon emissions "does not look impressive anymore.
However, as stated above, CO2 is not the cause of global warming anyway.

Like this: it's kind of boring. The greenhouse topic of CO2 has shrunk, and there is no intrigue.
Let's have fun. Imagine that humanity will uncontrollably burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels, and quickly burn all of its fossil reserves. And - against the background of global warming caused by the primary (solar) factor. If you add fuel to the fire in this way, what will happen to the climate. Is it possible to know the result without delving deeply into numerical climate models?

It turns out that it is possible, because there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 that is now accumulated in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere. Welcome to the Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic era. Then, about 330 million years ago, after a long ice age global warming has set in. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees warmer than today). As in the soda bottle experiment, CO2 began to flow from the ocean into the atmosphere, and its concentration increased from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent (10 times higher than today). Due to increased evaporation from the surface of the oceans, the concentration of "greenhouse" H2O in the atmosphere has increased. The tropical climate band has expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentration of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, during geological processes, turned from biomass into coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular, terrestrial ones) that exist now developed precisely then. In general: a celebration of life 30 million years long or so. No global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.

But what if the solar factor hadn't changed at the end of the Carboniferous? Maybe, in this case, the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2, nevertheless, would lead to climate catastrophe?
Answer: no. 30 million years is more than enough for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Note: that the apologists for the idea of the Kyoto Protocol threaten a catastrophe by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is associated with the previously noted feature of the "water" greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although, in the lower atmosphere, H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, contributing to warming, in the upper atmosphere (in particular, in the very cold stratosphere), its role is changing. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals with high light reflection. These clouds shield sunlight even more effectively than microparticles of volcanic ash (see the Tambora eruption, "a year without a sun"). With a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, there is a transfer to the upper layers, and the area of such clouds - screens that reduce the light flux to the surface - increases. A kind of natural climate control with negative feedback characteristic of our planet.

In general: even if humanity, against the background of warming, quickly burns all available fossil fuel reserves, and the CO2 content in the atmosphere rises to the late Paleozoic level, this will still not lead to a catastrophe. So the theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is pseudoscientific in every way.

Also, this protocol seems to rely on fake measurement data. So:
"Climategate" - a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the University's Climate Research Center East Anglia, and discovered the most interesting correspondence of the director of the Climate Research Unit, CRU. She showed that the justifications for the Kyoto Protocol included falsifications about the climate for about 20 years.
Here it would be possible to put the word END and a period. But then there will be an unsolved mystery: where did the theoretical part of this pseudoscientific scam come from? Where did the "greenhouse" terminology come from, and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's go back 50 years to the "golden decades of astronautics".
When, in 1967, the unmanned spacecraft Mariner 5 explored the atmosphere of Venus, scientists were very surprised heat and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close size, close mass), but its orbit is a quarter closer to the Sun.
This means that Venus receives twice as much heat from the Sun.
Assuming that Venus is in thermal equilibrium, then it must radiate as much heat into space as it receives from the Sun. The thermal radiation of the body (and in particular - the planet) is proportional to absolute temperature in the fourth degree.
Based on this, one could roughly estimate the temperature on Venus at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 found a temperature of 460 Celsius and a pressure of 90 atmospheres on Venus.
A theory soon arose to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth of the same time (Archaean era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees warmer. This difference was enough for the oceans not to form in certain period geological history, and all the CO2 contained in the primary atmosphere remained in it. Under these conditions, the greenhouse effect worked, which catastrophically heated the surface of Venus.
CO2 - carbon dioxide, main product during the combustion of any mineral fuel, turned out to be the culprit of the transformation of Venus into a red-hot hell!

And, after the mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner-5 flight, in 1975 the journal Science published an article by Wallace Broeker “Climate Change: Are we on the verge of a sharp global warming?”, In which, for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, a dangerous anthropogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
A perfect horror story to scare public opinion, and build a scam to trade greenhouse gas emissions, raise funds, etc.. Important role grants are played - to get "confirmation on behalf of science." This is how it works, and will probably work for a long time to come. Public opinion so intimidated that the US administration's recent rejection of the Paris Protocol set off a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and media thrillers.

Of course, such an outraged public did not delve into the calculations, and did not notice that the propagandists of the fight against the greenhouse effect, apply a mathematical model built not for the Earth (on which we live), but for Venus, (which receives twice as much solar heat and light, than the Earth, and on which it was not formed water ocean, which makes a catastrophic greenhouse effect possible).

This pseudoscientific-detective story with a model substitution of the Earth - Venus could seem like an absurd conspiracy theory. But, scientific popularizers of the fight against the greenhouse effect on Earth, themselves indicate as the strongest argument - the well-known and impressive result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.

…Reading the Daily Mail, January 10, 2018
Or a presentation in Russian - from the network source Liga.net for January 11, 2018
Renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has warned that the Earth will become "hot as hell" as a result of global warming. It is reported by the Daily Mail.
The theoretical physicist suggested that the Earth will become like Venus: the average temperature on our planet will reach 460 degrees Celsius, if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. According to NASA experts, 4 billion years ago, Venus, like the Earth, had an atmosphere, but due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere of the planet "burned out".
"The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, tell them to go to Venus. I'll pay the fare," Hawking concluded.

I would like to invite some scientists (and scientific publicists) to make a return journey: from an imaginary Venus to a real Earth. By the way, the ride is free.
It remains to make two final remarks.

1. Adherents of the Kyoto Protocol themselves do not believe in their CO2-greenhouse theory.
If they really believed in the power of the greenhouse demon named CO2, then they would obviously urge not to let this dangerous creature out of the bowels of the Earth at all.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, quite a realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy was 80 percent self-sufficient in energy from nuclear power plants ...
... But, we do not hear and do not see calls "Long live the peaceful atom" from the commissions working on the Kyoto-Paris theme of combating the greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, there are calls from international environmental organizations to curtail nuclear power. It's illogical, on the one hand. And on the other hand, this means that the matter is not in the CO2 threat (which is not), but in the monetary and stock effect (which is).
And, it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, as well as the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that extract hydrocarbon fuels.

2. Of course, on Earth there are man-made environmental problems. That this particular CO2 problem is fictitious does not change real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the oceans with oil products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of the regions of extraction of fossil raw materials.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
…Etc.
But, apparently, at the High International Level it is more profitable to deal with fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and false data. So it goes…

Epigraph: "No matter what they tell you - it's about money" (Todd's principle)

Forewarning: what does the planet Venus have to do with it, it will be clear closer to the finale.

The price of the issue: Al Gore (Vice President of the United States in 1993-2001, central character in the fight against CO2, Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2007 for this fight) increased his personal fortune from $2 million to about $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2-quotas by 2010 reached 120 billion dollars, and continues to grow vigorously. This is what it really means to make money out of thin air!

Andrey Kapitsa and Jonathan Moldavanov: “Global warming and ozone holes are scientific myths”:
“For many years, former President of the US Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz (Seitz) drew attention to the fact that all theories of global warming and ozone holes are far-fetched and do not correspond to reality, that they are anti-scientific theories. 17,000 American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a real threat to humanity and a heavy blow to its future.
*Note: A.P. Kapitsa is referring to the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.

Alexander Gorodnitsky "The end of the myth of global warming":
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the reduction of emissions into the atmosphere of the so-called "greenhouse gases", and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases allegedly lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect and a significant warming of the Earth's climate.

Let's start with a simple question: is there a greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, and what gases cause it?
Answer: The greenhouse effect exists. It is associated with the property of certain gases, in particular: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) to absorb infrared (thermal) radiation emanating from the relatively warm surface of the planet, preventing it from dissipating into relatively cold space.
What greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere in significant quantities?
The answer is H2O (about 1 percent) and CO2 (about 0.04 percent).
So: there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide.
And no one argues that the greenhouse effect is created mainly by water vapor.
Why then did not H2O, but CO2 become the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?

Another thing is the regulation of CO2 emissions. The carbon cycle in nature is not as widely covered in textbooks and popular science literature as the water cycle. And therefore, it is possible to feed pseudoscientific reasoning to the mass audience. Something like this:
- Industry burns coal and hydrocarbon fossil fuels, and emits combustion products into the atmosphere - already 30 billion tons of CO2 per year.
- Due to these emissions, the CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- It increased the greenhouse effect. As a result, the average temperature of the Earth has risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., since the start of intensive burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, temperatures could rise by about 6 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
- Next - see thrillers about the thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.

Let's look at this and pose the question: before our civilization - why did global warmings occur after the ice ages, which happened on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And a more local question: why did small warmings occur after small glaciations in the already historical period, but before the machine civilization. A well-known example: In the 10th century, the Vikings traveled west from Iceland to discover Greenland and Newfoundland. These were areas with a warm temperate climate, and Newfoundland even grew grapes. At present, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century fell on warming (historians call it the "medieval climatic optimum"). And the warming has done without industrial emissions of CO2.

The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remarks. Although all prehistoric warmings happened without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And there is a well-founded scientific theory to this, according to which the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a consequence of warming (we will return to the mechanism of this growth a little later). The warming itself is due to completely different factors.

There is a powerful regular factor: the flow of radiant energy from the Sun. It, according to a complex periodic law, depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-term fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles can be named (the duration of which, respectively: about 100, about 200, and about 2300 years).
2) Orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes in the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in the angles of illumination due to Lunar-Solar precession (Milankovitch cycles with periods of 10 thousand years, 26 thousand years, and 93 thousand years).

These factors really determine the climate of the Earth, in particular, the average temperature. Now let's look at what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to an experiment on a simple physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) A bucket of hot water (moderately hot, no extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can Borj, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
We put the first bottle in the cold, and the second in heat.
I'm waiting for an hour.
Next - open both bottles and visually and evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily come out of the first bottle, and a foam fountain is likely to come out of the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.

It turns out that it is possible, because there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 that is now accumulated in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere. Welcome to the Carboniferous period of the Paleozoic era. Then, about 330 million years ago, after a long ice age, global warming set in. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees warmer than today). As in the soda bottle experiment, CO2 began to flow from the ocean into the atmosphere, and its concentration increased from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent (10 times higher than today). Due to increased evaporation from the surface of the oceans, the concentration of "greenhouse" H2O in the atmosphere has increased. The tropical climate band has expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentration of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, in the course of geological processes, turned from biomass into coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular, terrestrial ones) that exist now developed precisely then. In general: a celebration of life 30 million years long or so. No global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.

But what if the solar factor hadn't changed at the end of the Carboniferous? Maybe, in this case, the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2 would still lead to a climate catastrophe?
Answer: no. 30 million years is more than enough for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Note: that the apologists for the idea of the Kyoto Protocol threaten a catastrophe by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is associated with the previously noted feature of the "water" greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although, in the lower atmosphere, H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, contributing to warming, in the upper atmosphere (in particular, in the very cold stratosphere), its role is changing. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals with high light reflection. These clouds shield sunlight even more effectively than microparticles of volcanic ash (see the Tambora eruption, "a year without a sun"). With a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, there is a transfer to the upper layers, and the area of such clouds - screens that reduce the light flux to the surface - increases. A kind of natural climate control with negative feedback, characteristic of our planet.

Also, this protocol seems to rely on fake measurement data. So:
"Climategate" is a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the Climate Research Center of the University of East Anglia, and discovered the most interesting correspondence of the director of the "Climatic Research Unit", CRU. She showed that the justifications for the Kyoto Protocol included falsifications about the climate for about 20 years.
Here it would be possible to put the word END and a period. But then there will be an unsolved mystery: where did the theoretical part of this pseudoscientific scam come from? Where did the "greenhouse" terminology come from, and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's go back 50 years to the "golden decades of astronautics".
When in 1967 the unmanned spacecraft Mariner 5 explored the atmosphere of Venus, scientists were surprised by its very high temperature and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close size, close mass), but its orbit is a quarter closer to the Sun.
This means that Venus receives twice as much heat from the Sun.
If we assume that Venus is in thermal equilibrium, then it should radiate as much heat into space as it receives from the Sun. The thermal radiation of the body (and in particular - the planet) is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power.
Based on this, one could roughly estimate the temperature on Venus at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 found a temperature of 460 Celsius and a pressure of 90 atmospheres on Venus.
A theory soon arose to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth of the same time (Archaean era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees warmer. This difference turned out to be enough that the oceans did not form at a certain period of geological history, and all the CO2 contained in the primary atmosphere remained in it. Under these conditions, the greenhouse effect worked, which catastrophically heated the surface of Venus.
CO2 - carbon dioxide, the main product during the combustion of any mineral fuel, turned out to be the culprit in turning Venus into a red-hot hell!

And, after the mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner-5 flight, in 1975 the journal Science published an article by Wallace Broeker “Climate Change: Are we on the verge of a sharp global warming?”, In which, for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, a dangerous anthropogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
A perfect horror story to scare public opinion, and build a scam to trade greenhouse gas emissions, raise funds, etc. Grant distribution plays an important role - to get "confirmation on behalf of science." This is how it works, and will probably work for a long time to come. Public opinion is so intimidated that the US administration's recent rejection of the Paris Protocol has sparked a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and media thrillers.

Of course, such an outraged public did not delve into the calculations, and did not notice that the propagandists of the fight against the greenhouse effect, apply a mathematical model built not for the Earth (on which we live), but for Venus, (which receives twice as much solar heat and light, than the Earth, and on which a water ocean has not formed, which makes a catastrophic greenhouse effect possible).

1. Adherents of the Kyoto Protocol themselves do not believe in their CO2-greenhouse theory.
If they really believed in the power of the greenhouse demon named CO2, then they would obviously urge not to let this dangerous creature out of the bowels of the Earth at all.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, quite a realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy was 80 percent self-sufficient in energy from nuclear power plants ...
... But, we do not hear and do not see calls "Long live the peaceful atom" from the commissions working on the Kyoto-Paris theme of combating the greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, international environmental organizations are calling for the curtailment of nuclear energy. It's illogical, on the one hand. And on the other hand, this means that the matter is not in the CO2 threat (which is not), but in the monetary and stock effect (which is).
And, it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, as well as the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that extract hydrocarbon fuels.

2. Of course, there are man-made environmental problems on Earth. That this particular CO2 problem is fictional does not change the real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the oceans with oil products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of the regions of extraction of fossil raw materials.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
…Etc.
But, apparently, at the High International Level it is more profitable to deal with fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and false data. So it goes…

Many experts suggest various options fight against. The conference on climate in Paris, which was organized by the UN, is devoted to this problem. It was attended by leaders of many countries, including the President of the Russian Federation. This conference was the most important historical event, during which agreements and commitments were developed to improve the climate in each country.

warming

Main global problem is warming. Every year the temperature rises by +2 degrees Celsius, which in the future will lead to a worldwide catastrophe:

- melting glaciers;
- drought of vast territories;
— desertification of soils;
- flooding of the coasts of continents and islands;
- the development of mass epidemics.

In this regard, actions are being developed to eliminate these +2 degrees. For this, humanity has no more than 20 years left, therefore, a well-coordinated teamwork all states. First of all, it is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ideally by 50% by the middle of the 21st century. However, this is difficult to achieve, because the purity of the climate costs colossal financial investments which will be in the trillions of dollars.

Russia's participation in reducing emissions

On the territory of the Russian Federation, climatic changes in some places occur more intensively than in some other countries. The most dangerous regions of the Arctic and Far East where these processes are actively progressing. AT this moment Russia ranks fifth in terms of gas emissions. A strategy has been developed, according to which the Russian Federation undertakes to reduce emissions by 25% of the 1990 figures. For this, legislation will be changed, development efficient technologies. By 2030, the amount of harmful emissions should be reduced by 2 times, the ecology of cities will improve.

Experts say that Russia has reduced the energy intensity of GDP by about 42% in the first ten years of the 21st century. This was influenced by the use of natural gas instead of coal. The Russian government plans to achieve the following indicators by 2025:

reduction in the electricity intensity of GDP by 12%;
reduction of energy intensity of GDP by 25%;
fuel economy - 200 million tons.

An interesting fact was recorded by Russian scientists that the planet is expecting a cooling cycle, as the temperature will drop by a couple of degrees. This opinion is shared by a group of American scientists. For example, in Russia, weather forecasters predict severe winters in Siberia and the Urals for the second year.