Good day, dear readers! Today we will talk about global problems ah humanity. I would like to discuss the topic discussed by everyone - global warming. Find out the reasons and how the Earth suffers from it and how it deals with it ...
Global warming is believed to be directly related to human economic activity... Although we practically do not feel a slight increase in temperature, this can have the most disastrous consequences for the entire biosphere. Lack of water and droughts, severe floods, hurricanes and fires in different regions of the planet are the result of global warming. In addition, under its influence, the flora and fauna noticeably change.
Some scientists believe that these are stages in the evolutionary development of our planet. After all, the Earth has already experienced several, so we may well live in a warm interglacial. Strong warming occurred in the Pliocene epoch (5.3-1.6 million years ago). Then the sea level was 30-35 meters higher than the modern one. It is assumed that the direct cause of the ice age was the change in the angle of inclination of the earth's axis to the plane of the orbit, along which it revolves around the sun. Among other factors of global warming are called: an increase in solar activity and significant dustiness of the atmosphere due to volcanic activity of industrial emissions.
It has been found that until 1990 the temperature increased by 0.5 ° C every 100 years, while more recently it has increased by 0.3 ° C every 10 years. If mankind continues to pollute the atmosphere at the same rate, then in the current century the climate on earth will warm by 1-5 ° C.
Main reasons.
The most widely held belief is that a mixture of natural and industrial gases (including nitrous oxide, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and methane) retains thermal energy in the Earth, which leads to heating. These gases have a common name - greenhouse gases, as well as the common impact they have, is called the greenhouse effect (sometimes the greenhouse effect).
A significant part of the solar energy is absorbed by the earth, and the unused part normally goes into outer space. However, greenhouse gases interfere with this process, so the surface of our planet begins to heat up. Global warming is the result of the described mechanism.
Mountain systems, snow and ice sheets, as well as the vegetation cover of the planet play key role in the regulation of air flows and temperature. Cryosphere - areas covered with snow and ice - reflects heat from the entire surface into space. The ratio of the radiation flux scattered by a surface to the flux incident on it is called albedo by scientists. Since a significant part rainforest cut down, the "green belt" that they form along the equator is gradually turning into regions devoid of woody vegetation, which, according to some experts, increases the albedo and contributes to global warming.
To date, there is no unanimous opinion among scientists about the source and changes in the composition of the mixture. greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide - a natural component of the earth's atmosphere, which is continuously absorbed and released by plants during their life. Its concentration in the air is steadily increasing: from 0.0256 volume percent to early XIX centuries to 0.0340 today.
Carbon dioxide in significant numbers released during the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal, wood). The constantly growing population of the Globe, using these types of fuel as the main source of energy resources, increases carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere year after year. In addition, as a result of large-scale logging and burning of tropical forests, green plants are converted to carbon dioxide. All of these factors lead to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Recently, scientists have assigned a significant role in the carbon dioxide cycle to phytoplankton, since these tiny plants that live in the world's oceans process significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Mass death phytoplankton leads to the accumulation of this gas in natural layers.
Nitrous oxide is present in car exhaust, like other harmful gases produced when fossil fuels are burned.
Methane in the course of their vital activity is produced by bacteria belonging to the genus Methanecoccbs, which are able to obtain energy by reducing carbon dioxide to methane.
They inhabit swampy soils and lake silt, sewage sludge, and the intestines of sheep and cattle. In the circumpolar regions, methane is trapped in the frozen layer because of it. With global warming and the gradual thawing of the frozen horizon, methane begins to release into the atmosphere, having a significant impact on it. Scientists claim that the level of this gas in the atmosphere has doubled over the past 100 years.
Chlorofluorocarbons - human-made chemical compounds used in refrigeration plants and aerosol dispensers. After use, they enter the atmosphere and accumulate in the stratosphere. Here they interact with ozone, a natural atmospheric component. The ozone layer, which normally protects our planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation, is destroyed, forming the so-called ozone holes. As a result, the increased level of ultraviolet radiation leads to more intense heating of the Earth's surface and atmosphere.
Impact on ecosystems.
Global warming can lead to intense melting of glaciers; already today, scientists have discovered quite large cracks in the ice fields of the Western Atlantic. Large-scale melting of ice will lead to a rise in the level of the World Ocean and inundation of vast areas of coastal regions. Ocean levels are reported to be rising at a rate of 6 cm per 10 years. If the rate of global warming continues, such cities as New Orleans (USA), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Venice (Italy), London (England) and others will be completely flooded.
And since water (like all physical bodies) expands when heated, it is assumed that this will lead to an even more significant rise in the level of the World Ocean.
With climate warming, terrestrial ecosystems will become drier, and therefore, the risk of fires will increase. Although fauna and flora are gradually adapting to changing conditions, the number of such arid areas is constantly increasing.
The person who changes natural ecosystems through urbanization, agricultural and industrial activities, and the constant increase in the consumption of fossil fuels and other types of energy are largely responsible for global warming.
Due to lack of water and frequent droughts, yields are declining in many previously highly fertile regions. During the period of climatic changes, cyclonic activity increases markedly, which is accompanied by more frequent natural disasters: hurricanes, destructive storms, tsunamis, storms, and so on.
Floods are another consequence of global warming, which is associated with the melting of mountain glaciers and ice-bound lakes. Mudflows in mountainous regions (due to the lack of vegetation cover, which strengthens the soil horizon) and flooding of large areas of low-lying areas are quite common these days, especially in India.
It affects about 300 million people who live in mountainous areas that occupy about 40% of the land surface.
What's going on with wildlife?
Subtle temperature fluctuations (both in the direction of cooling, and in the direction of warming) have significant influence on the population of living beings. For example, the fauna and flora of Britain, which is located off the northwestern coast of Europe, is very sensitive to climate changes on the mainland: birds, insects and plants are expanding their ranges to the north, while the natural regions of distribution of species that have adapted to harsh climatic conditions, on the contrary, are shrinking.
The danger is also posed by desertification of fertile agricultural lands due to drainage of soils, increased temperature and erosion. An example is the sub-Saharan strip of deserts and semi-desert shroud, which is constantly expanding due to uncontrolled grazing and logging.
Reasons for nesting.
The rise in temperature had an effect on the feathered inhabitants of the planet: many birds begin to build nests and breed earlier than usual. As a result of long-term observations (1962-1990) for 30,000 representatives of the bird kingdom, British scientists have established that as a result of global warming, 33 out of 88 species of the mating season begins unusually early. This trend has been evident since the mid-1970s.
As a result migratory birds have more time to prepare for a long and very difficult journey to the mainland, to the usual wintering areas, and the species, all year round those living in the British Isles have the opportunity to better prepare for the cold.
Disagreements.
Such a large scale of the arisen and developing problems made it necessary to solve it at the international level. The Second United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, at which the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, served as the impetus for the creation of mechanisms of intergovernmental interaction that provide an opportunity to reduce the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
In December 1997, in the Japanese city of Kyoto, a new international agreement was approved, which is an addition to the Framework Convention on Climate Change and called the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement provides for a whole range of measures to prevent negative climate change.
All states that have joined the Kyoto Protocol are obliged to form and implement a set of measures aimed at reducing the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.
Today I have all the information for you about global warming. Visit us more often, there will be new articles very soon. And don't forget to subscribe to blog updates so you don't miss them.
Recently, many scientists have been talking about the fact that global warming is taking place on Earth. This process is noticed by each of us. Indeed, in recent years, the weather has changed significantly: winters are dragging on, spring comes with a delay, and summer is sometimes very hot.
But nevertheless, despite the fact that the effects of global warming have been recorded by many scientific observations, endless discussions are still going on around this topic. Some scientists believe that in connection with the onset of the "ice age" is expected on Earth. Others make disappointing forecasts, and still others believe that the catastrophic consequences of global warming for our planet are highly controversial. Which one is right? Let's try to understand this issue.
Global warming concept
How can this term be defined? Global warming on Earth is a process that represents a gradual increase in the average annual temperature in surface layer atmosphere. It occurs due to an increase in concentration and also due to a change in volcanic or solar activity.
The problem of global warming began to be of particular concern to the world community at the end of the 20th century. Moreover, many scientists associate the increase in temperature with the development of industry that emit methane, carbon dioxide and many other gases that cause the greenhouse effect into the atmosphere. What is this phenomenon?
The greenhouse effect is an increase in the average annual temperature of air masses due to an increase in the concentration of water vapor, methane, etc. These gases are a kind of film that, like glass in a greenhouse, easily passes the sun's rays through itself and retains heat. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence showing that the causes of global warming on Earth lie not only in the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are many hypotheses. However, none of them can be accepted with absolute certainty. Consider those statements of scientists that deserve the most attention.
Hypothesis number 1
Many scientists believe that the reasons for global warming on our planet lie in the increase in solar activity. On this star, meteorologists sometimes observe the so-called which are nothing more than powerful magnetic fields... This phenomenon causes changes in climatic conditions.
For centuries, meteorological scientists have counted the spots appearing on the Sun. On the basis of the data obtained, the Englishman E. Mondoro in 1983 made an interesting conclusion that during the 14-19 centuries, which are sometimes called the Little Ice Age, such a phenomenon was not recorded on the Heavenly Luminary. And in 1991, scientists from the Danish University of Meteorology studied "sunspots" recorded throughout the 20th century. The conclusion was unequivocal. Scientists have confirmed the fact that there is a direct relationship between temperature changes on our planet and the activity of the Sun.
Hypothesis number 2
The Yugoslav astronomer Milankovic has suggested that global warming is largely caused by changes in the orbit in which the earth revolves around the sun. Affects climate change and the angle of rotation of our planet.
New characteristics in the position and movement of the Earth are causing changes in the radiation balance of our planet, and, consequently, in its climate.
Influence of the World Ocean
There is an opinion that the World Ocean is the culprit of global climatic changes on Earth. Its water element is a large-scale inertial accumulator of the Sun's energy. Scientists have established that intense heat exchange takes place between the thickness of the World Ocean and the lower layers of the atmosphere. This leads to significant climatic changes.
In addition, in ocean waters there are about one hundred and forty trillion tons of dissolved carbon dioxide. Under certain natural conditions, this element enters the atmosphere, also influencing the climate, creating a greenhouse effect.
Action of volcanoes
According to scientists, one of the causes of global warming is volcanic activity. During eruptions, great amount carbon dioxide. It is he who is the reason for the increase in average annual temperatures.
This mysterious solar system
One of the reasons for global warming on Earth, according to scientists, are not fully understood interactions that exist between the Sun and the planets that are part of its system. Changes in temperature on Earth arise from different distributions and many types of energy.
Nothing can be changed
Among scientists, there is an opinion that global warming of the climate occurs by itself, without the influence of humans and any external influences... Such a hypothesis also has a right to exist, since our planet is a large and very complex system with a lot of various structural elements. The adherents of this opinion even built various mathematical models confirming the fact that natural fluctuations in the surface air layer can range from 0 to 4 degrees.
Are we to blame for everything?
The most popular cause of global warming on our planet is the ever-increasing human activity, which significantly alters the chemical composition of the atmosphere. As a result of work industrial enterprises the air is increasingly saturated with greenhouse gases.
Specific figures speak in favor of this hypothesis. The fact is that over the past 100 years, the average air temperature in the lower atmosphere has increased by 0.8 degrees. For natural processes, this speed is too high, because earlier such changes have taken place for more than one millennium. In addition, in recent decades, the rate of increase in air temperature has increased even more.
Producers' gimmick or truth?
Today, the following question cannot be fully resolved: “Global warming - myth or reality?”. It is believed that climate change is nothing more than a commercial project. The history of considering this topic began in 1990. Before that, humanity was frightened by a horror story about ozone holes, which are formed due to the presence of freon in the atmosphere. The content of this gas in the air was negligible, but, nevertheless, American refrigerator manufacturers took advantage of this idea. They did not use freon in the manufacture of their products and waged a merciless war against competitors. As a result, European companies began to replace cheap freon with an expensive analogue, increasing the cost of refrigerators.
Today's idea of global warming plays into the hands of many political forces. After all, concern for the environment can bring many supporters into their ranks, who will allow them to get the coveted power.
Scenarios for the development of events
Scientists' predictions about the consequences of climate change for our planet are ambiguous. Due to the complexity of the processes taking place on Earth, the situation can develop according to various scenarios.
Thus, there is an opinion that global climate change will occur over the course of centuries and even millennia. This is due to the complexity of the relationship between the oceans and the atmosphere. These the most powerful batteries energies will not be able to rebuild in the shortest possible time.
But there is another scenario for the development of events, according to which global warming will occur relatively quickly on our planet. By the end of the 21st century, the air temperature will increase in comparison with 1990 by an indicator from 1.1 to 6.4 degrees. At the same time, intensive melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctica will begin. As a result, the waters of the World Ocean will increase their level. This process is observed today. So, from 1995 to 2005. the water column of the World Ocean has already risen by 4 cm. If this process does not reduce its speed, then flooding during global warming will become inevitable for many coastal lands. This will especially affect the populous areas located in Asia.
Climate change processes in the western United States and northern Europe will increase the frequency of storms and the amount of precipitation. Hurricanes will rage on these lands twice as often as in the 20th century. What will be the results of global warming in this scenario for Europe? In its central territories, the climate will become changeable with warmer winters and rainy summers. Eastern and Southern Europe (including the Mediterranean) will experience heat waves and droughts.
There are also forecasts of scientists, according to which a global change in climatic conditions in some parts of our planet will lead to short-term cold snaps. This will be facilitated by the slowing down of warm currents caused by the melting of ice caps. Moreover, a complete stop of these huge carriers of solar energy is also possible, which will cause the onset of the next ice age.
The most unpleasant scenario for the development of events can be a greenhouse catastrophe. It will be caused by the transition into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide contained in the water column of the World Ocean. In addition, as a result, methane will be released from the permafrost. At the same time, a monstrous film will form in the lower layers of the Earth's atmosphere, and the rise in temperatures will take on catastrophic proportions.
Consequences of global climate change
Scientists believe that the rejection of drastic measures to reduce greenhouse emissions will lead to an increase in the average annual temperature by 1.4-5.8 degrees by 2100. The effects of global warming will have an increase in hot weather periods, which will become more extreme in their own way. temperature regime and more durable. Moreover, the development of the situation will be ambiguous in different regions of our planet.
What are the projected impacts of global warming on the animal world? Penguins, seals and polar bears, accustomed to living in the polar ice, will have to change their habitat. At the same time, many species of plants and animals will simply disappear if they cannot adapt to new habitat conditions.
Also, global warming will cause climate change on a global scale. According to scientists, this will cause an increase in the number of floods that have become a consequence of hurricanes. In addition, summer precipitation will decrease by 15-20%, which will cause desertification of many agricultural areas. And due to the rise in temperature and water level of the World Ocean, the borders natural areas begin to move northward.
What are the consequences of global warming for humans? In the short term, climate change threatens people with problems with drinking water, with the cultivation of agricultural land. They will also lead to an increase in the number infectious diseases... Moreover, the most serious blow will be dealt to the poorest countries, which, in principle, bear no responsibility for the upcoming climate change.
According to scientists' comments, about six hundred million people will be brought to the brink of starvation. By 2080, people in China and Asia may experience ecological crisis caused by a change in the nature of precipitation and melting of glaciers. This same process will lead to the flooding of many small islands and coastal areas. In the flood-prone area, there will be about one hundred million people, many of whom will be forced to migrate. Scientists predict the disappearance of even some states (for example, the Netherlands and Denmark). It is likely that part of Germany will also be under water.
With regard to the long-term outlook for global warming, it could become the next stage in human evolution. Our distant ancestors faced similar problems in those periods when, after the ice age, the air temperature increased by ten degrees. Such changes in living conditions have led to the creation of today's civilization.
The consequences of climate change for Russia
Some of our fellow citizens believe that the problem of global warming will affect only residents of other states. After all, Russia is a country with a cold climate, and an increase in air temperature will only benefit it. The cost of heating housing and industrial facilities will decrease. Agriculture is also expected to benefit.
What, according to scientists' forecasts, is global warming and its consequences for Russia? Due to the length of the territory and the wide variety of natural and climatic zones available on it, the results of changes in weather conditions will manifest themselves in different ways. In some regions they will be positive, while in others they will be negative.
For example, on average, the heating period should be reduced by 3-4 days across the country. And this will provide tangible savings in energy resources. But at the same time, global warming and its consequences will have a different effect. For Russia, this threatens with an increase in the number of days with high and even critical levels of temperatures. In this regard, the costs of air conditioning of industrial enterprises and buildings will increase. In addition, the growth of such heat waves will become an unfavorable factor that worsens the health of people, especially those who live in large cities.
Global warming is becoming a threat and is already creating problems with melting permafrost. in such zones it is dangerous for transport and engineering structures, as well as for buildings. In addition, the thawing of permafrost will lead to a change in the landscape with the formation of thermokarst lakes.
Conclusion
There is still no unambiguous answer to the following question: "What is global warming - myth or reality?" However, this problem is quite tangible and deserves close attention. According to the comments of scientists, it especially made itself felt in 1996-1997, when many weather surprises were presented to mankind in the form of about 600 different floods and hurricanes, snowfalls and showers, droughts and earthquakes. During these years, the disaster caused colossal material damage in the amount of sixty billion dollars and claimed eleven thousand lives.
The solution to the problem of global warming must be at the international level, with the participation of the world community and with the assistance of the government of each of the states. To preserve the health of the planet, humanity needs to adopt a program of further actions, providing for control and accountability at each of its stages of implementation.
For more than a decade, the issue of the possibility of global warming has been in the center of attention of the world community. Based on web site news feeds and newspaper headlines, it might appear to be the most pressing scientific, social and economic problem facing humankind today. Lavishly funded rallies and summits are regularly held in various corners of the globe, bringing together a well-established cohort of fighters against 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 unprecedented pressure was exerted on the United States and Russia as the largest countries that doubted the expediency of this step (as a result, we were really able to be “suppressed”).
Considering the enormous price that will have to be paid not only to Russia, but also to other countries in the practical implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and far from obvious global implications, it is worthwhile to re-analyze how great the threat is and how we can, if at all, influence the course of events.
The essence of life is forecasting: any living organism tries to guess the future changes in the environment in order to adequately respond 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 an impending global catastrophe has always been one of the most urgent. Legends about a worldwide flood in the past and an imminent Apocalypse in the future can be found in almost all religions and teachings. With the development of civilization, 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 now as popular as they were during the life of the author. And today, as thousands of years ago, the predicted date of the next universal catastrophe does not have time to pass, as a new one is already on its way. As soon as the atomic phobia of the 50-60s of the last century subsided, the world learned about the impending "ozone" catastrophe, under sword of Damocles which passed almost the entire end of the XX century. But the ink has not yet dried under the Montreal Protocol banning the production of chlorofluorocarbons (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and true motives initiators), how the 1997 Kyoto Protocol heralded the world terrible threat global warming.
Now this symbol of the coming reckoning 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. Apologists of "ecoreligion" urge mankind to repent of their deeds and to throw all their strength and resources at atonement for sins, that is, to put on the altar of the new faith a significant portion of their present and future welfare. But, as you know, when you are encouraged to donate, you need to carefully monitor the wallet.
Although a political decision on the problem has already been made, it makes sense to discuss some fundamental issues. Still, there are still several decades before the serious economic consequences of warming, even under the most dire scenarios. Moreover, Russian authorities never sinned punctually in the observance of laws and the fulfillment of obligations. And as the wise Lao Tzu taught, it is often the inaction of the rulers that is good for the subjects. Let's try to answer a few of the most important questions:
How big are the real climate changes observed?
It is usually argued that the temperature has risen by 0.6 ° C over the past century, although until now, apparently, there is not even a single method for determining this parameter. For example, satellite data gives more low value than ground measurements - only 0.2 ° C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of the climatic observations carried out a hundred years ago, modern observations and the sufficient breadth of their geographical coverage. In addition, natural climate fluctuations on the scale of a century, 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 caused by natural causes?
This is one of the most painful questions for the fighters against global warming. There are many completely natural causes of such and even more noticeable climatic fluctuations, and the global climate can experience strong fluctuations without any external influences. Even at a fixed level solar radiation and a constant concentration of greenhouse gases over a century, fluctuations in the average surface temperature can reach 0.4 ° C (this problem was discussed in an article in “ Nature", 1990, t. 346, p. 713). In particular, due to the enormous thermal inertia of the ocean, chaotic changes in the atmosphere can cause an aftereffect that will affect decades later. And in order for our attempts to influence the atmosphere to give desired effect, they should noticeably exceed the natural fluctuation "noise" of the system.
What is the contribution of the anthropogenic factor to atmospheric processes?
Modern anthropogenic fluxes of the main greenhouse gases are almost two orders of magnitude lower than their natural fluxes and several times lower than the uncertainty in their assessment. The draft IPCC report ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 1995, it was reported that "any claims of significant climate change are controversial 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 say with certainty that all or part of the recorded climate changes are caused by reasons of an anthropogenic nature." These words were later replaced by others: “The balance of evidence suggests a clear human influence on the climate,” although no additional data was presented to substantiate this conclusion.
Moreover, the rate at which the climatic impact of greenhouse gases is changing does not at all correlate 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 the production of carbon fuels from the 70s to the end of the 90s, the rate of increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide during this period slowed down sharply, and methane even began to decline.
The 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. Started 700 years before industrial revolution- back in the days of the Vikings, - this process has now just as unexpectedly stopped with the continued growth of production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emission of hydrocarbons. Methane levels in the atmosphere have remained constant over the past four years, according to two independent research groups from Australia, as well as from the United States and the Netherlands.
What are the natural climatic and atmospheric trends?
For obvious reasons, supporters of emergency measures also do not like to discuss this issue. Here we refer to the opinion of well-known domestic experts in this area (A.L. Yanshin, M.I.Budyko, Yu.A. Izrael. Global warming and its consequences: Strategy of measures taken. In collection: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Science, 2003).
"Exploring changes chemical composition atmosphere in the geological past has shown that for millions of years, a tendency towards a decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 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 in the middle latitudes, as well as aridization (desertification. - Note. ed.) vast territories at lower latitudes.
Along with this, with a reduced amount of carbon dioxide, the intensity of photosynthesis decreased, which, apparently, reduced the total biomass on our planet. These processes were especially pronounced in ice ages the Pleistocene, when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere repeatedly approached 200 ppm. This concentration slightly exceeds the critical concentration values, of which one 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 remote possibility of the destruction of the biosphere as a result of its natural development, we note that the likelihood of such death seems to be significant. "
Thus, if a climatic catastrophe threatens humanity in the future, it is not due to an excessive increase, but, on the contrary, due to a decrease in temperature! Recall that, according to modern geological concepts, we are living 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 fuels, man has embarked on the path of restoring the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the warm epochs of the geological past.<...>Man inadvertently stopped the process of depletion of carbon dioxide, the main resource in the creation of organic matter autotrophic plants, and made it possible to increase the primary productivity, which is the basis for the existence of all heterotrophic organisms, including humans. "
What is the scale of the expected climate change?
In various scenarios, the expected change in average temperature by the end of the century ranges from an increase of 10 ° C to a decrease relative to the present level. Usually, they operate as the "most probable" 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 area confidently give a negative answer to both questions. Can we predict technogenic 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 defining sectors of the modern economy are energy, raw materials, heavy and chemical industries. Capital expenditures 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 enterprises that are now being commissioned will determine the technological potential of the world during the first third of a 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. The fears of futurists are often recalled as a curious example showing the price of bolder forecasts. late XIX centuries, predicting that the streets of London will be littered with horse manure, although the first cars had already appeared on the roads of England.
In addition, according to the 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, these resources will suffice for just about a century, and a decrease in oil production is expected in the next ten years. Considering the proximity of a new ice age, apparently, one can only regret the short duration of the "hydrocarbon era" in the history of world energy.
Has humanity previously faced such large-scale climatic changes?
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 economic activity primitive man- a hunter for mammoths and large ungulates of the tundra fauna. However, humanity not only survived, but thanks to this event, having found a worthy response to the challenge of nature, it rose to a new level, creating a civilization.
As the example of our ancestors shows, real threat the existence of mankind (and even more so of life on Earth, as it is sometimes claimed), an increase in global temperature does not bring. The consequences of the large-scale restructuring of the climate expected today can be quite well represented by considering the relatively close to us Pliocene epoch (period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct human ancestors appeared. The average surface temperature then exceeded the present day 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.
Noticeable changes in climate 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 emergence and death of many great civilizations, but did not pose a threat to humanity as a whole. (Suffice it to recall the decline of cattle breeding in the Sahara, the civilization of Mesopotamia, the Tangut kingdom in North China; more details about the role of climatic changes in the history of culture can be found in the book by L.N. Gumilyov "Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the Earth".)
What are the potential impacts 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 the 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 it will take over 1000 years! The real rise in sea level over the past century was 10-20 cm, with a significantly greater amplitude of transgression and coastline regression as a result of tectonic processes. In the next hundred years, the sea level is expected to rise by no more than 88 cm, which is unlikely to disrupt the global economy. Such a rise in sea level can only cause a gradual migration of a small part of the world's population - a phenomenon much less tragic than the annual death from hunger 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 world economy by 2050 due to the projected increase in temperature is estimated at only 300 billion dollars. This is less than 1% of today's world GDP. And what will the fight against warming cost?
World Watch Institute ( WorldWatch 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 a decrease in fossil fuel consumption, improve combustion technologies and save resources. But according to the estimates of the same institute, such a tax will increase the cost of 1 liter of gasoline by 4.5 cents, and the cost of 1 kWh of electricity- by 2 cents (that is, almost twice!). And for the widespread introduction of solar and hydrogen sources energy, 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 estimated positive effect does not exceed 1.3%. In addition, climate models predict that much more emissions reductions will be required to stabilize the climate than the protocol's return to 1990 levels.
Here we come to another fundamental issue. Activists of "green" movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental 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 the global ecology, there is no harmless production activity. The same "alternative" energy with full accounting of all emissions in environment in the process of production, operation and disposal of the necessary raw materials and equipment, for example solar panels, agricultural machines, hydrocarbon fuels, hydrogen, etc., in most cases turns out to be more dangerous than coal energy.
“Until now, in the minds of most people, the negative environmental consequences of economic activities 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, chemical industry, energy is great. But idyllic agricultural lands, manicured forest parks and city lawns pose no less danger to the biosphere. The openness of the local circulation as a result of human economic activity means that the existence of a site that is artificially maintained in a stationary state is accompanied by a deterioration in the state of the environment in the rest of the biosphere. Blooming garden, a lake or river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circuit of substances with increased productivity, is much more dangerous for the biosphere as a whole than an abandoned land turned into a desert ”(from the book by V.G. Gorshkov“ Physical and biological foundations of the stability of life ". M .: VINITI, 1995).
Therefore, the strategy of preventive measures is inapplicable in the global ecology. It is necessary to make a quantitative calculation of the optimal balance between the desired result and the cost of reducing damage to the environment. The cost of preventing the emission of a ton of carbon dioxide reaches $ 300, while the cost of hydrocarbon feedstock, which gives this ton during combustion, is less than $ 100 (recall that 1 ton of hydrocarbon gives 3 tons of CO 2), and this means that we significantly increase our total energy consumption , the cost of energy received and the rate of depletion of scarce hydrocarbon resources. In addition, even in the United States, $ 1 million. of the produced GDP, 240 tons of СО 2 are emitted (in other countries it is much more, for example, in Russia - five times!), and most of the GDP falls on non-production, that is, non-СО 2 emitting industries. It turns out that the cost of $ 300. for the utilization of 1 ton of carbon dioxide will lead to additional emission of at least several hundred kilograms of the same CO 2. Thus, we run the risk of launching a gigantic machine, idly burning our already meager 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 spending energy and resources on fighting the inevitable, you need to assess whether it will be cheaper to adapt to changes, try to benefit from them. And then it turns out that the decrease in the land surface due to its partial flooding will more than pay off by increasing the used territory in Siberia, and over time in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as by increasing the overall productivity of the biosphere. Increasing the carbon dioxide content in the air will benefit most crops. This becomes clear if we recall 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 shown experimentally that the doubling of the CO 2 concentration in atmospheric air can lead to a 30% increase in the yield of some crops, and this is extremely important for the rapidly growing population of the planet.
Who and why is in favor of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol?
The most active position in the fight against global warming is taken 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 geographic map. Western Europe is located in the same latitudinal strip as Siberia. But what a climatic contrast! In Stockholm, at the same latitude as Magadan, grapes ripen steadily. The gift of fate in the form of the warm current of the Gulf Stream has become the economic basis of European civilization and culture.
Therefore, the Europeans are worried not about global warming and the fate of the population of Bangladesh who is at risk of being left without territory, but about the local cooling in Western Europe, which may be a consequence of the 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 usually take the toughest and most uncompromising position in negotiations on these issues. But we must also understand what their motives are. Do we really take the fate of Western Europeans so close to our hearts that we are ready to sacrifice our future for the sake of preserving their well-being? By the way, warmer Siberia has enough room for all Europeans, and maybe new settlers will finally settle it.
There is also a more prosaic reason forcing 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 energy shortage 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 brilliant move: to impose the same strict energy consumption standards on potential competitors, and at the same time create a market for selling their energy saving technologies... The Americans refused to voluntarily impose restrictions that undermine their economies and benefit Western European competitors. China, India and other developing countries, the main competitors of the industrial powers of the Old World, including Russia, too. 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 to the south of Moscow. This is one of the main reasons that Russia spends five times more energy (and produces more CO 2!) Per unit of GDP produced than the United States and European countries. For a country with more than 60% of its territory located in the permafrost zone, reaching almost to our southern border in Transbaikalia, it is somehow absurd to fight warming. Economists estimate that a one-degree increase in average annual temperature reduces the cost of maintaining each workplace in half. It turns out that we voluntarily agree to participate in the fight against the natural possibility of doubling our economic potential, although the president has officially declared this doubling as the goal of state policy!
We do not undertake to discuss the political benefits of demonstrating unity with Europe on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol. The opportunity to make money on "air trade" (that is, CO2 emission quotas) also does not make sense to consider seriously. First, we are already 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, with the assigned price of 5 euros per quota of 1 ton of CO2 (at a real price of 300 dollars!), The proceeds will be incomparable with our today's oil and gas exports. And thirdly, at the projected rates of development 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 voluntarily limit our economic development.
Such a possibility seems incredible, but 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 by this time Russia did not have time to develop and introduce its own alternative technologies, this led to the almost complete elimination of Russian production aerosols and refrigeration equipment. A domestic market captured by foreign, mainly Western European manufacturers. Unfortunately, now history repeats itself: energy saving is by no means the most strong point We do not have Russian energy and our own energy-saving technologies ...
The glaring injustice of the Kyoto Protocol in relation to Russia lies in the fact that the boreal forests of Russia with an area of 8.5 million km 2 (or 22% of the area of all forests on Earth) accumulate 323 Gt of carbon per year. No other ecosystem on Earth can match them. According to modern concepts, tropical rainforests, which are sometimes called the "lungs of the planet", absorb about the same amount of CO2 as released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the forests of the temperate zone north of 30 ° N. sh. accumulate 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 damage from the restriction of economic activity and environmental protection in these regions.
Will Kyoto Protocol Measures Prevent Warming?
Alas, even the 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 may increase by 30-150% compared to modern level... This could lead to an increase in the average global temperature of the earth's surface by 1-3.5 ° C by 2100 (with significant regional variations in this value), which will certainly cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activities. However, if we assume that the conditions of the protocol will be met by reducing CO2 emissions, the reduction in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the scenario in which there is no emission regulation at all will amount to 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 required. In all the considered scenarios, the resulting effect of this on the temperature change turns out to be insignificant: only 0.08 - 0.28 ° С. Thus, the real expected effect of the Kyoto Protocol is reduced to a demonstration of loyalty to "environmental ideals". But isn't the price too high for the demonstration?
Is the problem of global warming the most important of those faced by mankind now?
Another unpleasant question for the advocates of "ecological ideals". The fact that the third world has long lost interest in this problem was clearly shown by the 2002 summit in Johannesburg, whose participants stated that the fight against poverty and hunger is more important for humanity than possible climate change in the distant future. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly 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 greenhouse gas emissions will come from technologically backward energy developing countries not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.
What does this problem look like in the context of the further development of civilization?
The conflict between man and Nature is by no means a consequence of our "ecological uncleanliness". Its essence lies in the disruption of the biosphere 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 loudly damned 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 biospheric land production is already almost an order of magnitude higher, and the share of the developed and transformed part of the land has exceeded 60%.
Nature and Civilization are essentially antagonists. Civilization strives to use the potential accumulated by Nature as a resource for its development. And for the system of natural regulators, fine-tuned over billions of years of existence of the biosphere, the activity of Civilization is a disturbing influence that must be suppressed in order to return the system to equilibrium.
From the very inception of our planet, the essence of the evolution of matter taking place on it is the acceleration of the processes of transformation of matter and energy. Only it is capable of supporting the stable development of such complex non-equilibrium systems as the Biosphere or Civilization. Throughout the existence of our planet and all 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 a basic evolutionary principle that cannot be canceled or circumvented. Accordingly, our civilization will either stop in its development and perish (and then something else will inevitably arise in its place, but something similar in essence), or it will evolve, processing ever larger volumes of matter and dissipating more and more energy into the surrounding space. Therefore, an attempt to fit into Nature is a strategically dead-end path, which sooner or later will still lead to the cessation of development, and then to degradation and death. The Eskimos of the North and the Papuans of New Guinea have traveled a long and difficult path, as a result of which they ideally fit into the surrounding nature - but they paid for it by stopping their development. This path can only be viewed as a time-out in anticipation of a qualitative change in the nature of civilization.
Another way is to take on all the functions of managing natural processes, replacing the biospheric mechanism of homeostasis with an artificial one, that is, to create a technosphere. It is on this path, perhaps not fully realizing it, that supporters of the regulation of climatic processes are pushing us. But the amount of information circulating in the technosphere is many orders of magnitude inferior to that circulating in the biosphere, therefore the reliability of such technospheric regulation is still too low to guarantee humanity's salvation from death. Having started with artificial regulation of the "dying" ozone layer, we are already forced to think about negative consequences excess atmospheric ozone. And the attempt to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases is only the beginning of an endless and hopeless search for replacing natural biospheric regulators with artificial ones.
The third and most real way is the co-evolution (according to N.N. Moiseev) of Nature and Civilization, - mutual adaptive transformation. What the result 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 the movement towards a new global equilibrium, a new global unity of Nature and Civilization.
Against the background of turbulent social and economic processes taking place in modern world, and the real problems facing the multibillion-dollar population of the planet, on the verge of a radical change in the nature of Civilization and its relationship with Nature, the attempt to regulate the climate is likely to come to naught naturally once it comes to real costs. Taking the ozone history as an example, Russia already has a sad experience of participation in solving global problems. And it would be good for us not to repeat the mistakes we once made, because if the fate of the domestic refrigeration industry befalls the domestic energy sector, even the worst global warming will not save us.
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 the polar ice disappears. Many species of animals and plants will also disappear, not having time to adapt to the rapidly changing habitat. 250 million years ago, global warming killed three quarters of all life on Earth
Global warming will change the global climate. An increase in the number of climatic cataclysms, an increase in the number of floods due to hurricanes, desertification and a decrease in summer precipitation by 15-20% in the main agricultural areas are expected, an increase in the level and temperature of the ocean, the boundaries of natural zones will move to the north.
Moreover, according to some forecasts, global warming will trigger the onset of the Little Ice Age. In the 19th century, the reason for 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: a lack of drinking water, an increase in infectious diseases, agricultural problems due to droughts, an increase in the number of deaths due to floods, hurricanes, heat waves and droughts.
The poorest countries, which are least responsible for exacerbating the problem and least prepared to cope with climate change, could be hit hardest. Warming and rising temperatures, in the end, can reverse everything that has been achieved by the work of previous generations.
Destruction of established and habitual guidance systems Agriculture under the influence of droughts, irregular rainfall, etc. can actually put about 600 million people on 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 ocean level by 40-120 cm (according to some calculations, up to 5 meters). This means flooding of many small islands and flooding in coastal areas. In areas prone to floods, there will be about 100 million inhabitants, 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) estimates that the health of hundreds of millions of people may be threatened by the spread of malaria (due to the increase in the number of mosquitoes in flooded areas), intestinal infections (due to disruption of water supply and sewage systems), etc.
In the long term, this can lead - to the next stage of human evolution. Our ancestors faced a similar problem when, after the ice age, the temperature rose sharply by 10 ° C, but this 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 rise in temperatures on Earth and what a chain reaction can be.
The exact relationship between rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and rising temperatures is also unknown. This is one of the reasons that forecasts of temperature changes vary so much. And this gives food to skeptics: some scientists consider the problem of global warming to be somewhat exaggerated, as well as the data on the increase in the average temperature on Earth.
Scientists do not have a consensus on what the final balance of positive and negative effects of climate change can be, and according to which scenario the situation will develop further.
A number of scientists believe that several factors can 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 consequences 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 melting and sea level rise will also be faster…. And this is confirmed by the data of the latest research.
Already, the ocean level has increased by 4 cm instead of the predicted 2 cm, the rate of glacier melting has increased 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).
Perhaps human activity has already doomed the ice cover to complete disappearance, which may 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 occur much faster than previously thought due to the release of carbon dioxide from ecosystems, including from the World Ocean.
And finally, we must not forget that global warming may be followed by a global cooling.
However, whatever the scenario, everything speaks for 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. Better to do whatever you can to prevent it than to bite your elbows later. He who is forewarned is armed.
For thousands of years, people have used their planet for selfish purposes. They built cities and factories, mined tons of coal, gas, gold, oil and other materials. At the same time, man himself in a barbaric way destroyed and continues to destroy what nature gave us. Thousands of innocent birds, insects, fish perish through the fault of people; the number is constantly increasing; and so on. Soon, a person can experience the wrath of Mother Nature on his own skin. We are talking about global warming, which is gradually coming to our earth. A person is already beginning to experience the consequences of this cataclysm. It will turn into a tragedy for both man and all life on our planet. Nature is able to live without man. It changes and evolves over the years, but a person cannot live without nature and her.
Photos of Grinnell Glacier in Glacier National Park (Canada) in 1940 and 2006.
What is Global Warming?
Global warming Is a gradual and slow increase in the average annual temperature. Scientists have identified many reasons for this cataclysm. For example, this can include volcanic eruptions, increased solar Activity, hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis and of course human activities. Most scientists support the idea of human guilt.
Consequences of global warming
- First of all, this is an increase in average temperature. The average annual temperature rises every year. And every year scientists observe that the numbers of elevated temperatures are growing;
- Melting glaciers. Nobody argues here anymore. The cause of the melting of glaciers is indeed global warming. Take, for example, the Uppsala glacier in Argentina, which is 60 km long, up to 8 km wide, and an area of 250 km2. It was once considered one of the most large glaciers South America. Every year it melts by two hundred meters. And the Rowhn glacier in Switzerland rose four hundred and fifty meters;
- Increase in sea level. Due to the melting of glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica and the Arctic and warming, the water level on our planet has risen by ten to twenty meters and is gradually increasing every year. What awaits our planet as a consequence of global warming? Warming will affect many species. For example, penguins and seals will have to look for a new place to live, since their habitat habitat will simply melt. A lot of representatives will disappear due to the fact that they will not be able to quickly adapt to new environment a habitat. An increase in the frequency of natural disasters is also expected.
A lot of rain is expected, while drought will prevail in many regions of the planet, the duration of very hot weather will also increase, the number of frosty days will decrease, and the number of hurricanes and floods will increase. Due to drought, the number of water resources, agricultural productivity will fall. It is very likely that the number of burnings in peatlands will also increase. Soil instability will increase in some parts of the world, coastal erosion will intensify, and the area of ice will shrink.
The consequences are, of course, not very pleasant. But history knows many examples when life won. Remember at least the Ice Age. Some scientists believe that global warming is not a worldwide catastrophe, but just a period of climatic changes on our planet that have been taking place on Earth throughout its history. People are already making efforts to somehow improve the condition of our land. And if we make the world better and cleaner, and not vice versa, as we did before, then there is every chance of surviving global warming with minimal losses.
Informative video about global warming
Examples of global warming on Earth in our time:
- Uppsala glacier in Patagonia (Argentina)
2. Mountains in Austria, 1875 and 2005
Factors accelerating global warming
Many people already know that global warming is a significant problem today. It is worth considering that there are factors that activate and accelerate this process. First of all Negative influence has an increase in the emission of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane and other harmful gases into the atmosphere. This happens as a result of the activities of industrial enterprises, the functioning of vehicles, but the greatest impact on the environment occurs during: accidents at enterprises, fires, explosions and gas leaks.
The acceleration of global warming is facilitated by the release of steam due to high air temperatures. As a result, the waters of rivers, seas and oceans are actively evaporating. If this process gains momentum, then within three hundred years the oceans may even dry out significantly.
Since glaciers are melting as a result of global warming, this contributes to an increase in water levels in the oceans. In the future, this floods the coasts of continents and islands, can lead to flooding and destruction of settlements. During the melting of ice, methane gas is also released, which is significant.
Factors slowing down global warming
There are factors such as natural phenomena and human activities that are contributing to slowing global warming. First of all, ocean currents contribute to this. For example, the Gulf Stream slows down. In addition, a decrease in temperatures in the Arctic has been noticed recently. At various conferences, the problems of global warming are raised and programs are put forward that should coordinate actions different spheres economy. This helps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases and harmful compounds into the atmosphere. Consequently, the ozone layer is reduced and restored and global warming slows down.
