Global warming causes and consequences, what it threatens. Global warming: causes and consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

How big are the actual observed climate changes?

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

Could the observed changes be caused by natural causes?

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

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

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

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

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

What are the natural climate and atmospheric trends?

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

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

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

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

What is the scale of expected climate change?

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

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

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

Has humanity faced such large-scale climate changes before?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is global warming the most important problem facing humanity today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

06/22/2017 article

What is climate change on our planet?

To put it simply, it is an imbalance of all natural systems, which leads to changes in precipitation patterns and an increase in the number of extreme events such as hurricanes, floods, droughts; These are sudden changes in weather that are caused by fluctuations in solar radiation (solar radiation) and, more recently, human activities.

Climate and weather

Weather is the state of the lower layers of the atmosphere at a given time in a given place. Climate is the average state of weather and is predictable. Climate includes indicators such as average temperature, precipitation, number of sunny days and other variables that can be measured.

Climate change is fluctuations in the climate of the Earth as a whole or its individual regions over time, expressed in statistically significant deviations of weather parameters from long-term values ​​over a period of time from decades to millions of years. Moreover, changes in both average values ​​of weather parameters and changes in the frequency of extreme weather events are taken into account. The science of paleoclimatology studies climate change.

Dynamic processes in the electrical machine of the planet are the source of energy for typhoons, cyclones, anticyclones and other global phenomena Bushuev, Kopylov “Space and Earth. Electromechanical interactions"

The cause of climate change is dynamic processes (disturbances in the balance of natural phenomena) on Earth, external influences, such as fluctuations in the intensity of solar radiation, and, one can add, human activity.

Glaciations

Scientists recognize glaciations as one of the most marker indicators of climate change: they increase significantly in size during climate cooling (the so-called “little ice ages”) and decrease during climate warming. Glaciers grow and melt due to natural changes and under the influence of external influences. The most significant climatic processes over the past few million years are the succession of glacial and interglacial epochs of the current ice age, caused by changes in the orbit and axis of the Earth. Changes in the state of continental ice and sea level fluctuations of up to 130 meters are key consequences of climate change in most regions.

World Ocean

The ocean has the ability to accumulate (accumulate for the purpose of its subsequent use) thermal energy and move this energy to different parts of the ocean. Large-scale ocean circulation created due to density differences (a scalar physical quantity defined as the ratio of the mass of a body to the volume occupied by this body) of water, formed due to the heterogeneity of the distribution of temperature and salinity in the ocean, that is, it is caused by density gradients as a result of the action of fresh water flows and heat. These two factors (temperature and salinity) together determine the density of seawater. Wind-driven surface currents (such as the Gulf Stream) move water from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean northward.

Transit time - 1600 years of Primeau, 2005

These waters cool along the way and, as a result, due to the increase in the resulting density, sink to the bottom. Dense waters at depths move in the direction opposite to the direction of wind currents. Most of the dense waters rise back to the surface in the Southern Ocean, and the “oldest” of them (according to a transit time of 1600 years (Primeau, 2005) rise in the North Pacific Ocean, this also happens due to sea currents - constant or periodic flows in the thickness of the world's oceans and seas.There are constant, periodic and irregular currents, surface and underwater, warm and cold currents.

The most significant for our planet are the Northern and Southern Trade Winds, the Western Winds and density currents (determined by differences in water density, an example of which is the Gulf Stream and the North Pacific Current).

Thus, there is constant mixing between ocean basins within the “ocean” dimension of time, which reduces the difference between them and unites the oceans into a global system. As water masses move, they constantly move both energy (in the form of heat) and matter (particles, solutes and gases), so large-scale ocean circulation significantly influences the climate of our planet, this circulation is often called the ocean conveyor belt. It plays a key role in heat redistribution and can significantly influence climate.

Volcanic eruptions, continental drift, glaciations and the shift of the Earth's poles are powerful natural processes that affect the Earth's climate Ecocosm

In the observational aspect, the current state of the climate is not only a consequence of the influence of certain factors, but also the entire history of its state. For example, during ten years of drought, lakes partially dry up, plants die, and the area of ​​deserts increases. These conditions in turn cause less abundant rainfall in years following drought. Thus, climate change is a self-regulating process, since the environment reacts in a certain way to external influences, and, by changing, is itself capable of influencing the climate.

Volcanic eruptions, continental drift, glaciations and the shift of the Earth's poles are powerful natural processes that influence the Earth's climate. On the scale of millennia, the climate-determining process will be the slow movement from one ice age to the next.

Climate change is caused by changes in the earth's atmosphere, processes occurring in other parts of the Earth, such as oceans, glaciers, and, in our time, effects associated with human activities.

To completely cover the issue, it should be noted that the processes that form the climate and collect it are external processes - these are changes in solar radiation and the earth’s orbit.

Causes of climate change:

• Changes in size, relief, relative position of continents and oceans.
• Change in luminosity (the amount of energy released per unit time) of the Sun.
• Changes in the parameters of the Earth's orbit and axis.
• Changes in the transparency and composition of the atmosphere, including changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases (CO 2 and CH 4).
• Changes in the reflectivity of the Earth's surface.
• Changes in the amount of heat available in the depths of the ocean.
• Tectonics (structure of the earth's crust in connection with geological changes occurring in it) of lithospheric plates.
• The cyclical nature of solar activity.
• Changes in the direction and angle of the Earth's axis, the degree of deviation from the circle of its orbit.

The result of the second reason in this list is the periodic increase and decrease in the area of ​​the Sahara Desert

• Volcanism.
• Human activities that change the environment and influence the climate.

The main problems of the latter factor are: the increasing concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere due to fuel combustion, aerosols affecting its cooling, industrial livestock farming and the cement industry.

Other factors such as livestock farming, land use, ozone depletion and deforestation are also believed to influence the climate. This influence is expressed by a single quantity—radiative heating of the atmosphere.

Global warming

Changes in the modern climate (toward warming) are called global warming. We can say that global warming is one of the local puzzles, and negatively colored, of the global phenomenon of “modern global climate change.” Global warming is one of the rich set of entities called “climate change on the planet,” which consists of an increase in the average annual temperature of the Earth’s climate system. It causes a whole series of troubles for humanity: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and temperature anomalies in general.

Global warming is one of the local puzzles, and a negative one, of the global phenomenon of “modern global climate change” Ecocosm

Since the 1970s, at least 90% of warming energy has been stored in the ocean. Despite the ocean's dominant role in storing heat, the term "global warming" is often used to refer to increases in average air temperatures near land and ocean surfaces. A person can influence global warming by preventing the average temperature from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius, which is determined to be critical for an environment suitable for humans. When the temperature rises by this value, the Earth's biosphere faces irreversible consequences, which, according to the international scientific community, can be suppressed by reducing harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

By 2100, according to scientists, some countries will turn into uninhabitable territories, these are countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other countries of the Middle East.

Climate change and Russia

For Russia, the annual damage from the impact of hydrometeorological phenomena amounts to 30–60 million rubles. The average air temperature at the Earth's surface has increased since the pre-industrial era (approximately 1750) by 0.7 o C. There are non-spontaneous climate changes - this is an alternation of cool-humid and warm-dry periods in the interval of 35 - 45 years (put forward by scientists E. A. Brickner) and spontaneous climate changes caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases due to economic activities, that is, the heating effect of carbon dioxide. Moreover, many scientists have reached a consensus that greenhouse gases have played a significant role in most climate change, and human emissions of carbon dioxide have already triggered significant global warming.

Scientific understanding of the causes of global warming has become increasingly clear over time. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) stated that there is a 90% probability that most of the temperature change is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases due to human activity. In 2010, this conclusion was confirmed by the academies of sciences of the main industrial countries. It should be added that the results of rising global temperatures are rising sea levels, changes in the amount and nature of precipitation, and an increase in deserts.

Arctic

It is no secret that warming is most pronounced in the Arctic, leading to the retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. The temperature of the permafrost layer in the Arctic has increased over 50 years from -10 to -5 degrees.

Depending on the time of year, the area of ​​the Arctic ice cover also changes. Its maximum value occurs at the end of February - beginning of April, and the minimum - in September. During these periods, “control indicators” are recorded.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began satellite surveillance of the Arctic in 1979. Until 2006, ice cover decreased by an average of 3.7% per decade. But in September 2008 there was a record jump: the area decreased by 57,000 square meters. kilometers in one year, which over a ten-year period gave a 7.5% decrease.

As a result, in every part of the Arctic and in every season, the extent of ice is now significantly lower than it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Other consequences

Other effects of warming include: an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and heavy rainfall; ocean acidification; extinction of biological species due to changes in temperature. Implications of importance for humanity include threats to food security due to negative impacts on crop yields (especially in Asia and Africa) and loss of human habitats due to rising sea levels. Increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will acidify the ocean.

Opposition policy

Policies to combat global warming include the idea of ​​mitigating it by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as adapting to its impacts. In the future, geological design will be possible. It is believed that in order to prevent irreversible climate change, the annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions until 2100 should be at least 6.3%.

This means that, on the one hand, it is necessary to introduce energy-saving technologies, and on the other hand, switch to alternative energy sources that are appropriate to the geographical location. Several energy sources are safe for the atmosphere in terms of emissions: hydropower, nuclear power plants and new renewable sources - sun, wind, tides.

On December 12, 2015, at the UN World Climate Conference in Paris, 195 delegations from around the world approved a global agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020.

Map of the effects of global warming

Good day, dear readers! Today we will talk about global problems of humanity. I would like to discuss a topic that everyone is discussing - global warming. Find out the reasons and how the Earth suffers from this and how to cope with it...

Global warming is believed to be directly related to human activities. Although we practically do not feel a slight increase in temperature, this can have the most detrimental consequences for the entire biosphere. Water shortages 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 change noticeably

Some scientists believe that these are stages of 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 during the Pliocene era (5.3-1.6 million years ago). Then the sea level was 30-35 meters higher than today. It is assumed that the immediate cause of the ice age was a change in the angle of inclination of the earth's axis to the plane of the orbit in which it revolves around the sun. Among other factors of global warming are: an increase in solar activity and significant dustiness of the atmosphere due to volcanic activity of industrial emissions.

It was found that until 1990, the temperature increased by 0.5°C every 100 years, while recently it has increased by 0.3°C every 10 years. If humanity continues to pollute the atmosphere at the same rate, then already in the current century the climate on earth will warm by 1-5°C.

Main reasons.

The most common belief is that a mixture of natural and industrial gases (including nitrous oxide, water vapor, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and methane) traps thermal energy in the Earth, resulting in warming. These gases have a common name - greenhouse gases, and the overall effect they have is called the greenhouse effect (sometimes the greenhouse effect).

A significant portion of solar energy is absorbed by the earth, and the unused portion normally goes into outer space. However, greenhouse gases interfere with this process, so the surface of our planet begins to warm up. Global warming is the result of the described mechanism.

Mountain systems, snow and ice sheets, and the planet's vegetation play a key role in regulating air flow 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. With much of the rainforest cleared, the green belt they form along the equator is gradually becoming treeless regions, which some say increases albedo and contributes to global warming.

To date, there is no consensus among scientists regarding the source and changes in the composition of the mixture of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide - a natural component of the earth's atmosphere, which is continuously absorbed and released by plants in the process of their life. Its concentration in the air is steadily increasing: from 0.0256 percent by volume at the beginning of the 19th century to 0.0340 today.

Carbon dioxide is released in significant quantities during the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal, wood). The ever-growing population of the globe, which uses these types of fuel as the main source of energy resources, increases carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere year after year. In addition, large-scale logging and burning of tropical forests turns green plants into carbon dioxide. All of these factors lead to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Recently, scientists have assigned a significant role to phytoplankton in the carbon dioxide cycle, since these tiny plants living in the world's oceans process significant volumes of carbon dioxide. The massive death of phytoplankton leads to the accumulation of this gas in natural layers.

Nitrous oxide is present in car exhaust, like other harmful gases produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

Methane in the process of their life is produced by bacteria belonging to the genus Methanecoccbs, which are able to obtain energy by reducing carbon dioxide to methane.

They live in boggy soils and lake mud, in sewage sludge and in the intestines of sheep and cattle. In the polar regions, methane is retained in the frozen layer. With global warming and the gradual thawing of the frozen horizon, methane begins to be released into the atmosphere, having a significant impact on it. Scientists say that over the past 100 years the level of this gas in the atmosphere has doubled.

Chlorofluorocarbons - Man-made chemicals used in refrigeration units and aerosol sprays. 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 so-called ozone holes. As a result, increased levels of ultraviolet radiation lead to more intense heating of the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

Impact on ecosystems.

Global warming may lead to intensive 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 rising sea levels and flooding of vast areas of coastal regions. According to available data, sea levels are rising at a rate of 6 cm per 10 years. If the rate of global warming continues, cities such 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 increase in the level of the World Ocean.

As the climate warms, terrestrial ecosystems will become drier and, consequently, the risk of fires will increase. Although fauna and flora are gradually adapting to changing conditions, the number of such arid habitats is constantly increasing.

Humans, who alter natural ecosystems through urbanization, agricultural and industrial activities, and ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels and other forms of energy, are largely responsible for global warming.

Due to lack of water and frequent droughts, crop yields in many previously very fertile regions are falling. During the period of climate change, cyclonic activity increases noticeably, which is accompanied by more frequent natural disasters: hurricanes, destructive storms, tsunamis, storms, and so on.

Flooding is 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 that strengthens the soil horizon) and flooding of large areas of low-lying areas are quite common these days, especially in India.

This affects about 300 million people who live in mountainous areas, occupying about 40% of the land surface.

What's happening to wildlife?

Subtle temperature fluctuations (either cold or warm) have a significant impact on populations of living things. 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, and the natural distribution regions of species that have adapted to harsh climatic conditions are, on the contrary, shrinking.

Desertification of fertile agricultural lands due to soil drainage, rising temperatures and erosion is also a danger. An example is the strip of deserts and semi-desert savannas in the south of the Sahara, which is constantly expanding due to uncontrolled grazing and timber harvesting.

Reasons for nesting.

The rise in temperature has also had an impact on the feathered inhabitants of the planet: many birds begin to build nests and breed offspring earlier than usual. As a result of long-term observations (1962-1990) of 30,000 representatives of the bird kingdom, British scientists found that as a result of global warming, the mating season begins unusually early in 33 of 88 species. This trend has been evident since the mid-1970s.

As a result, migratory birds have more time to prepare for the long and very difficult journey to the mainland, to their usual wintering areas, and species that live all year round in the British Isles have the opportunity to better prepare for the cold.

Disagreements.

Such a large scale of the emerging and developing problem necessitated its solution at the international level. The Second United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which took place in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro and at which the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, served as an impetus for the creation of interstate cooperation mechanisms that provide the opportunity to reduce the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere.

In December 1997, a new international agreement was approved in the Japanese city of Kyoto, 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 acceded to the Kyoto Protocol are required to formulate and implement a set of measures aimed at reducing the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.

For today I have all the information for you about global warming. Come visit more often, new articles are coming very soon. And don’t forget to subscribe to blog updates so you don’t miss them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is weather and climate

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

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

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

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

Facts about global warming

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

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

Natural climate changes

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

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

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

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

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

The essence of the greenhouse effect

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

Earth without greenhouse effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man-made processes produce methane in several ways:

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

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

Carbon dioxide and methane concentrations

Concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane in 2017 exceeded their natural limits over the past 650,000 years. Much of this increase in concentration is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

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

• If the temperature increases

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

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

Research Projections Show Sea Level Rise

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

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

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

Impact of water vapor and other greenhouse gases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius.

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

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

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

What are the consequences

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

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

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

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

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

Is global warming a real problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some common climate policy issues:

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

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

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

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

Throughout its history, humanity has used the natural resources of its native planet free of charge. The benefits that nature placed at our disposal were accepted as given. Parallel to the development of human civilization there was a merciless appropriation of earthly wealth. Even though our earthly home is huge, it is able to independently regulate the processes occurring in nature, but still, the human environment today does not look as ideal as it was during the last 1-2 thousand years ago. One of the most visible consequences of the development of human civilization is global climate change.

Over the past 150-200 years, when humanity entered the active phase of its development, the climate on the planet has changed quite noticeably. The geography of the planet has changed, living conditions in different parts of the Earth have changed dramatically. Where previously ideal weather conditions were observed, the climate changes, the habitat becomes harsher and less hospitable. Fewer and fewer conditions remain necessary for the normal and prosperous existence of the human race.

What is the essence of the warming problem?

It should be recognized that the consequences of global warming are not entirely the result of thoughtless human activity. Changes in the planet's climatic conditions are influenced by a number of factors.

On the scale of the Universe, our civilization is a fleeting period. What are 200 thousand years of existence of Homo sapiens compared to 4.5 billion years of life of our planet? Over the entire existence of the Earth, the climate on its surface has changed several times. Dry and hot periods gave way to global cooling, which ended with ice ages. Huge glaciers covered most of the planet with their shell. The further consequences of global warming in prehistoric times became catastrophic. Melting glaciers led to large-scale floods. The rapidly rising ocean level on the planet led to the flooding of vast areas.

According to scientists, the process of global warming was started a long time ago and without human intervention. This is facilitated by the natural course of geophysical and astrophysical processes occurring in our solar system, in our galaxy and in the Universe. The theory that existed at the end of the 20th century that humans are to a certain extent involved in the deterioration of the climate situation in the world has now been revised. Analysis of the disasters that have engulfed our planet in the last 20-30 years, the study of astrophysical and geophysical data have given scientists reason to believe that the emerging changes in climate are dynamic. To date, two factors have been identified that influence changes in weather conditions on the planet and climate transformation:

• natural;
• anthropogenic.

The first factor is uncontrollable and is explained by the inevitable processes occurring in space. The increasing expansion of the Universe affects the astrophysical parameters of the movement of all celestial bodies. In other words, the presence of climate changes on our planet is a consequence of the cyclical nature of astronomical processes.

While one category of scientists is closely studying the influence of the Universe on earthly processes, another part has begun to study the scale of the negative impact of human civilization on the natural environment. The impact of anthropogenic factors began with the advent of the industrial revolution. New technologies and the subsequent globalization of the economy have led to a rapid deterioration of the environmental situation on the planet. As a result, anthropogenic factors from year to year began to influence the environment and influence the planetary climate.

The harm caused is local in nature, and therefore is not so noticeable at the regional level. However, in total, the harmful impact of humans on the Earth’s biosphere is global. As a result of emissions of products from petrochemical and metallurgical enterprises, the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. Deforestation of equatorial forests in Brazil, in turn, leads to a decrease in oxygen in the atmosphere of our planet. All this and much more leads to the greenhouse effect. As a result, there is an increase in the average temperature on the planet, polar ice is melting and, accordingly, the level of the world's oceans is rising.

It becomes obvious that it is necessary to radically change our attitude towards our own planet. This can be achieved by eliminating or limiting anthropogenic factors that have a harmful effect on our environment.

The problem is of a planetary scale, so it is necessary to study it and find a solution through joint efforts. The individual activities of some individual international organizations and social movements will not solve the problem. But unfortunately, at present there is a global situation of misunderstanding of what is happening, lack of a real and objective assessment of the factors influencing climate conditions.

New facts in the history of global warming

Studies of ice samples taken from a two-kilometer depth at the Vostok station in Antarctica have shown a significant change in the chemical composition of the Earth’s atmosphere over two hundred thousand years. As mentioned, the climate on Earth has not always been uniform and stable. However, now information has appeared in the scientific community that the main causes of global warming in prehistoric times were associated not only with geophysical processes, but also with high concentrations of greenhouse gases - CO2 and CH4 (methane). Glaciers have always melted. Another thing is that today this process is happening faster. Global warming on earth can occur much sooner - not in a thousand, not in a hundred, but much faster - within ten years.

The 20th century looks like a record-breaking century in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. We can say that this is due to the influence of cyclical natural factors, but today these processes clearly cannot occur without human participation. Climate change occurs more dynamically than is determined by the natural cycle. Real confirmation of this is the rapidly increasing number of cataclysms on a planetary scale.

According to scientists from the Faculty of Meteorology at the University of Washington, in the 80s of the 20th century, the planet experienced an average of 100-120 disasters and natural disasters per year. In the 2000s, the number of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and other natural disasters occurring annually on the planet increased 5 times. Droughts began to occur much more often, and the duration of the monsoon rainy season increased.

According to meteorologists, this is a direct consequence of the fact that fluctuations in atmospheric temperatures on the planet have become significant. Seasonality on Earth ceases to be the norm, the boundaries between warm and cold periods become clearer and more expressive. Cold winter abruptly gives way to hot summer and vice versa. Following the warm season, cold weather comes sharply. In areas of the planet where a mild maritime climate prevailed, the number of hot and dry days increases. In cold regions, instead of bitter frosts, a prolonged thaw is observed.

The intensive increase in the use of organic fuels in industry and in human life leads to an increase in emissions of CO2, methane and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere. The predominance of these gases in the earth's atmosphere prevents heat exchange between air layers, creating a greenhouse effect. The earth's surface, heated by solar energy and “wrapped” in an air coat of greenhouse gases, gives off less heat and, accordingly, heats up faster.

Most of all, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases is fraught with the following circumstances:

• increase in air mass temperature;
• changes in the localization of precipitation formation zones in the earth's atmosphere;
• increasing intensity and expressiveness of climate and weather phenomena;
• melting glaciers;
• decrease in fresh water reserves;
• rising sea levels;
• changing existing ecosystems on the planet.

A change in the average annual temperature of just 1-2 degrees leads to irreversible consequences that entail a chain reaction. The rising average temperature on the planet is leading to the rapid melting of glaciers on the planet, and the area of ​​the ice shell of Greenland and Antarctica is decreasing. The average annual thickness of snow cover in Siberia and the Canadian tundra is decreasing. The ice cover that binds the Arctic Ocean is shrinking.

The glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica - the richest natural reserves of fresh water on the planet - are irreversibly dissolving into ocean salt water. The water level of the world's oceans is rising, but due to rising seawater temperatures and desalination, the population of commercial fish is decreasing. Accordingly, fishing is also declining, and as a result of natural evaporation, vast areas of agricultural land are becoming scarce. In place of fields and rice paddies, zones of semi-deserts and deserts are rapidly appearing, completely unsuitable for growing agricultural crops.

As a direct consequence of global temperature changes, famine and large-scale coastal flooding are becoming an increasingly likely threat to humanity.

The amount of water resulting from the rapid melting of the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica will lead to a rise in the water level of the world's oceans by 11-15 meters. Huge areas will be flooded in the countries of Europe, Asia, Africa and states located in the Western Hemisphere, where up to 60% of the planet's population lives.

According to scientists, flooding of coastal areas with sea water in the next 20-30 years will cause natural migration of the population inland. An increase in temperature in the permafrost zone will lead to swamping of vast areas of Western and Eastern Siberia, which will ultimately become unsuitable for development. Changes in the intensity of precipitation and a decrease in fresh water supplies will lead to the beginning of a new struggle for the redistribution of resources.

Finding a solution to global warming

Climate change on the planet is not a private problem. This is a slow-moving disaster that will eventually affect everyone. In this regard, ways to solve it are the task of governments of all countries. It is not for nothing that the scale of the problem and its aspects are dominant and discussed at the highest international level.

The efforts achieved to date in this direction are encouraging. For the first time, it was recognized at the state level that it is humans and their commercial activities that lead to an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the planet’s atmosphere. Under pressure from the scientific community and public environmental organizations around the world, politicians in the most developed countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This agreement is intended to regulate the amount of industrial emissions that contain high amounts of greenhouse gases. The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol was the desire to reduce the volume of harmful emissions by 5.2% and bring pollution parameters to the 1990 level. The atmosphere, as a result, should be cleared of harmful gaseous compounds, which will lead to a reduction in the greenhouse effect.

Within the framework of the Kyoto document, quotas for harmful emissions were determined:

• for EU countries, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions will need to be reduced by 8%;
• for the United States, emissions would need to be reduced by 7%;
• Canada and Japan have pledged to reduce this figure by 6%;
• for the Baltic countries and Eastern Europe, the amount of greenhouse gases in emissions will have to decrease by 8%;
• a special, favorable regime has been created for the Russian Federation and Ukraine, as a result of which the economies of both countries must adhere to the parameters of harmful gas emissions at the 1990 level.

Despite the global scale of the event, not all countries with massive sources of emissions have ratified this agreement at the state level. For example, the United States, the country with the largest economy on the planet, has not yet completed the ratification process. Canada generally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, and China and India only recently became members of international climate agreements.

The latest achievement in the fight to preserve the planet's climate was the Paris International Climate Conference, held in December 2018. During the conference, new quotas for greenhouse gas emissions were determined and new requirements were voiced for the governments of countries whose economies are dependent on the use of mineral fuels at industrial facilities. The new agreement defined ways for the development of alternative energy sources. The emphasis is on the development of hydropower, increasing the heat content in production technologies, and the use of solar panels.

The fight against global warming today

Unfortunately, today industrial giants scattered around the world have concentrated more than 40% of the world economy in their hands. The noble desire to limit the amount of emissions of harmful components into the atmosphere by introducing restrictions in the field of industrial production in a number of countries looks like an attempt to put artificial pressure on the economies of competitors.

Global warming in Russia is assessed as one of the limiting factors in the development of the domestic economy. Despite the country's active position on the world stage in matters of climate protection and conservation, the country's economy is heavily dependent on the use of mineral fuels. The weak energy intensity of the domestic industry and the slow transition to modern energy-intensive technologies are becoming a serious obstacle to real achievements in this direction.

Our near future will show how true all this turns out to be. Whether global warming is a myth or a cruel reality, other generations of businessmen and politicians will find out.

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them