About global warming and the associated serious economic, social and environmental issues ... In recent years, a great many news and information on this subject have been published. But the latest news, perhaps, turned out to be the "coolest" of all. A group of scientists from the USA, France and Great Britain stated that we have already passed the point of no return and the catastrophic consequences of global warming on Earth cannot be stopped.

Global warming is the process of a gradual increase in the average annual temperature of the atmosphere of the Earth and the World Ocean (definition by Wikipedia). There are several reasons for global warming and they are associated with cyclical fluctuations in solar activity (solar cycles) and human economic activity. It is impossible to determine today with absolute certainty which of them is dominant. Most scientists are inclined to the point of view that the main reason for this is human activity (combustion of hydrocarbon fuels). Some scientists strongly disagree and believe that the total human influence is small, and the main reason is high solar activity. Moreover, they even argue that soon after the current warming, a new small glacial period.

Personally, in this situation, it is difficult for me to accept any one point of view, since none of them today has sufficiently complete scientific evidence. And yet, the problem is serious, you need to react to it somehow and you cannot stay on the sidelines... In my opinion, even if the supporters of the anthropogenic (human) factor, as the main cause of global warming, turn out to be wrong in the future, then the efforts and funds spent today to prevent this warming will not be in vain. They will more than pay off with new technologies and attentive attitude on the part of people to nature conservation.

What is the essence of global warming? The bottom line is the so-called "greenhouse" effect. In the Earth's atmosphere, there is a certain balance of heat input (solar rays) from the Sun and its return to space. The composition of the atmosphere has a great influence on this balance. More precisely, the amount of so-called greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide and methane, although water vapor also has a greenhouse value). These gases have the ability to trap the sun's rays (heat) in the atmosphere, preventing them from going back into space. Previously, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 0.02%. However, as the industry grew and the production and combustion of coal, oil and natural gas increased, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere constantly increased. Because of this, more heat is absorbed, which gradually heats up the planet's atmosphere. Forest and steppe fires also contribute to this. This is what concerns human activity. I will leave the mechanism of cosmic influence for the next material.

What are the consequences of global warming? Like any phenomenon, global warming has both negative and positive consequences. It is believed that it will become warmer in the northern countries, so it will be easier in winter, agricultural yields will increase, and southern crops (plants) will be cultivated to the north. However, scientists are confident that negative consequences there will be much more global warming and the losses from them will greatly exceed the benefits. That is, in general, humanity will suffer from global warming.

What kind of disasters can be expected from global warming?

1. An increase in the number and strength of destructive typhoons and hurricanes;
2. Increase in the number and duration of droughts, exacerbation of the problem of water scarcity;
3. From the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic glaciers, the rise in the level of the World Ocean and the flooding of coastal areas where many people live;
4. The death of taiga forests due to melting permafrost and the destruction of cities built on this permafrost;
5. Distribution to the north and highlands of a number of species - pests of agriculture and forestry and disease vectors.
6. Changes in the Arctic and Antarctic can lead to a change in the circulation of ocean currents, and hence the entire hydro and atmosphere of the Earth.

This is in general terms. In any case, global warming is a problem that will affect all people, regardless of where they live and what they do. That is why it is today the most widely discussed in the world, not only among scientists, but also by the public.

There are many discussions and different points of view on this matter. Personally, I was most impressed by the film by Al Gore ( former candidate in the US presidential campaign in which he went along with George W. Bush) "An Inconvenient Truth." It lucidly and reasonably reveals the causes of global warming and shows its negative consequences for people. The main conclusion drawn in the film is that the momentary political interests of narrow ruling groups of people must give way to the long-term interests of the entire human civilization.

In any case, a lot needs to be done in order to, if not stop, then at least mitigate the negative consequences of global warming. And the publication below - once again think about it.

(Continuation )

Georgy Kazulko
Bialowieza Forest

(Write your feedback, thoughts, ideas, questions, remarks or disagreements in the comments below (anonymous users sometimes need to send a comment in a separate window) enter code english text from the picture) or send it to my email address: [email protected])

Catastrophic climate change cannot be stopped

The best scientists in the world believe that in the near future, humanity will face the expansion of deserts, declining harvests, increasing strength of hurricanes, and the disappearance of mountain glaciers, which provide water for hundreds of millions of people.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has already reached the point after which catastrophic climate changes will begin, even if the amount of carbon dioxide will be reduced in the coming decades.

This is stated by a group of renowned scientists from the United States, France and the United Kingdom in an article published in the Open Atmospheric Science Journal.

This study contradicts previous estimates, according to which a dangerous concentration of carbon dioxide will be reached in this century, only later, reports RIA Novosti.

“There is a bright side to this conclusion - if we take steps to reduce carbon dioxide concentration, we can reduce the number of problems that already seem inevitable,” said lead author James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Research at Columbia University.

According to the scientist, humanity will be faced with expanding deserts, declining yields, increasing the strength of hurricanes, shrinking coral reefs and the disappearance of mountain glaciers, which provide water for hundreds of millions of people.

To prevent a sharp warming in the coming years, the researchers write, the concentration of carbon dioxide must be reduced to the level that existed before the industrial era - up to 350 parts per million (0.035%). The current concentration of carbon dioxide is 385 ppm and is increasing by 2 ppm (0.0002%) per year, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The authors of the article note that the latest data on the history of climate change on Earth support their conclusions. In particular, observations of the melting of glaciers, which previously reflected solar radiation, and the release of carbon dioxide from the melting permafrost and the ocean show that these processes, which were previously thought to be rather slow, can occur over decades, rather than thousands. years.

Scientists note that reducing emissions from coal combustion can significantly improve the situation.

At the same time, they are skeptical about geoengineering methods of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, in particular, to proposals to bury carbon dioxide in tectonic fractures or pump it into rocks on the ocean floor. In their opinion, the withdrawal of 50 millionths of gas using this technology will cost at least $ 20 trillion, which is twice the US national debt.

“Humanity today is faced with the inconvenient fact that industrial civilization is becoming the main factor influencing the climate. The biggest danger in this situation is ignorance and denial, which can make tragic consequences inevitable, ”the researchers write.

We rarely think about what is going to happen in the future. Today we have other things to do, responsibilities and concerns. Therefore, global warming, its causes and consequences are perceived more as scenarios for Hollywood films than as a real threat to the existence of mankind. What signals speak of an impending catastrophe, what are its causes and what future awaits us - let's figure it out.

To understand the degree of danger, assess the growth of negative changes and understand the problem, let us analyze the very concept of global warming.

What is Global Warming?

Global warming is a measure of the rise in average ambient temperatures over the past century. Its problem is that, starting from the 1970s, this indicator began to increase several times faster. The main reason for this lies in the strengthening of human industrial activity. Not only the water temperature has risen, but also by about 0.74 ° C. Despite this small value, the consequences can be colossal, if you believe the scientific work.

Research in the field of global warming reports that temperature changes have accompanied the planet throughout its life. For example, Greenland is evidence of climate change. History confirms that in the XI-XIII centuries this place was called "Green Land" by Norwegian sailors, because there was no snow and ice cover, as today, there was no trace of it.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, heat prevailed again, which led to a decrease in the scale of the glaciers of the Arctic Ocean. Then, from about the 40s, the temperature dropped. A new round of its growth began in the 1970s.

The causes of climate warming are explained by such a concept as the greenhouse effect. It consists in increasing the temperature of the lower atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in the air, such as methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide and others, contribute to the accumulation of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface and, as a result, to the heating of the planet.

What causes the greenhouse effect?

1. Forest fires. First, a large amount is released. Secondly, the number of trees that process carbon dioxide and give oxygen is reduced.
2. Permafrost. The land, which is in the grip of permafrost, emits methane.
3. Oceans. It is they who give a large amount of water vapor.
4. Eruption. With it, an ejection occurs huge amount carbon dioxide.
5. Living organisms. We all contribute to education greenhouse effect, because we exhale the same CO 2.
6. Solar Activity. According to satellite data, the Sun has significantly increased its activity over the past few years. True, scientists cannot give exact data on this matter, and therefore there are no conclusions.

We looked at the natural factors that contribute to the greenhouse effect. However, the main contribution is made by human activities. The intensified development of industry, the study of the bowels of the Earth, the development of minerals and their extraction served to release a large amount of greenhouse gases, which led to an increase in the temperature of the planet's surface.

What exactly does a person do to increase global warming?

1. Oilfield and industry. By using oil and gas as fuel, we emit large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
2. Fertilization and soil cultivation. Pesticides and the chemicals used to do this contribute to the release of nitrogen dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas.
3. Deforestation. Active exploitation of forests and deforestation of trees leads to an increase in carbon dioxide.
4. Overpopulation of the planet. The growth in the number of inhabitants of the Earth explains the reasons for point 3. To provide people with everything they need, more and more territories are being developed in search of minerals.
5. Landfill formation. Lack of waste sorting, wasteful use of products lead to the formation of landfills that are not recyclable. They are either buried deep in the ground or burned. Both of these lead to a change in the ecosystem.

Traffic and traffic congestion also accelerate environmental disaster.

If the current situation is not corrected, then the rise in temperature will continue further. What other consequences will there be?

1. Temperature range: in winter it will be much colder, in summer it will be either abnormally hot or rather cold.
2. The volume of drinking water will decrease.
3. The harvest in the fields will be noticeably poorer, some crops may disappear altogether.
4. In the next hundred years, the water level in the world's oceans will rise by half a meter due to the rapid melting of glaciers. The salinity of the water will also begin to change.
5. Global climatic disasters, hurricanes and tornadoes will become not only commonplace, but will spread to the scale of Hollywood films. Many regions will experience torrential rains that have not previously appeared there. Winds and cyclones will begin to intensify and become frequent.
6. The growing number of dead zones on the planet - places where humans cannot survive. Many deserts will get bigger.
7. Due to the sharp change in climatic conditions, trees and many species of animals will have to adapt to them. Those who do not have time to do this quickly will be doomed to extinction. This applies most of all to trees, since in order to get used to the terrain, they must reach a certain age in order to give birth to offspring. Reducing the amount of "" leads to an even more dangerous threat - a colossal emission of carbon dioxide, which there will be no one to convert into oxygen.

Ecologists have identified several places in which global warming on Earth will be reflected in the first place:

• Arctic- melting of the Arctic ice, an increase in the temperature of permafrost;
• Sahara Desert- snowfall;
• small islands- the rise in the level of the world's oceans will simply flood them;
• some asian rivers- they will spill and become unusable;
• Africa- the depletion of the mountain glaciers feeding the Nile will lead to the drying up of the river floodplain. The adjacent territories will become uninhabitable.

Today's permafrost will move further north. As a result of global warming, the course of sea currents will change, and this will cause uncontrolled climate changes throughout the planet.

As the number of heavy industries, oil and gas processing companies, landfills and incinerators grows, the air will become less and less usable. The people of India and China are already concerned about this problem.

There are two forecasts, in one of which, given the same level of greenhouse gas production, global warming will become noticeable in about three hundred years, in the other - in a hundred, if the level of emissions into the atmosphere grows.

The problems that the inhabitants of the Earth will face in the event of global warming will affect not only ecology and geography, but also financial and social aspects: the reduction of territories suitable for life will lead to a change in the locations of citizens, many cities will be abandoned, states will face a shortage of food and water for the population.

The Emergencies Ministry reports that the number of floods in the country has almost doubled over the past quarter century. Moreover, many parameters of such disasters are recorded for the first time in history.

Scientists predict the impact of global warming in the 21st century, primarily on Siberia and the subarctic regions. Where it leads? Rising permafrost temperatures threaten radioactive waste storage facilities and pose serious economic problems. By mid-century, winter temperatures are projected to rise by 2-5 degrees.

There is also the possibility of periodic appearance of seasonal tornadoes - more often than usual. Floods on Far East have repeatedly brought great harm to the residents of the Amur Region and the Khabarovsk Territory.

Roshydromet suggested the following problems associated with global warming:

1. In some regions of the country, unusual droughts are expected, in others - floods and soil moisture, which will lead to the destruction of agriculture.
2. Growth of forest fires.
3. Disruption of the ecosystem, displacement of biological species with the extinction of some of them.
4. Compulsory air conditioning in summer in many regions of the country and subsequent economic costs.

But there are also some pluses:

1. Global warming will increase navigation along the sea routes of the north.
2. There will also be a shift in the border of agriculture, which will increase the area of ​​agriculture.
3. In winter, the need for heating will decrease, which means that the expense of funds will also decrease.

It is still quite difficult to assess the danger of global warming for humanity. Developed countries are already introducing new technologies in heavy production, such as special filters for air emissions. And more populated and less developed countries suffer from the man-made consequences of human activity. This imbalance will only grow without affecting the problem.

Scientists are tracking change thanks to:

• chemical analysis of soil, air and water;
• studying the rate of melting of glaciers;
• charting the growth of glaciers and desert zones.

These studies make it clear that the rate of impact of global warming is growing every year. More greener ways of operating heavy industry and ecosystem restoration are needed as soon as possible.

What are the ways to solve the problem:

• quick landscaping large area land;
• creation of new varieties of plants that can easily get used to changes in nature;
• the use of renewable energy sources (for example, wind energy);
• development of greener technologies.

When solving the problems of global warming today, people must look far into the future. Many documentary agreements, for example, the protocol adopted as an addition to the UN Framework Convention in Kyoto in 1997, did not give the desired result, and the introduction of environmental technologies is extremely slow. In addition, re-equipment of old oil and gas production plants is almost impossible, and the costs of building new ones are quite high. In this regard, the reconstruction of heavy industry is, first of all, an economic issue.

Scientists are thinking over different ways of solving the problem: special carbon dioxide traps have already been created, located in mines. Aerosols have been developed that affect the reflective properties of the upper layers of the atmosphere. The effectiveness of these developments has not yet been proven. The car combustion system is constantly being modified to protect it from harmful emissions. Alternative energy sources are being invented, but their development costs a lot of money and is progressing extremely slowly. In addition, mills and solar panels also emit CO 2.

The problem of violation of the climatic balance has become acute recently. During the first 10 years of the XXI century, the volume of emissions of harmful gases increased by 4 times. For this reason, there is now a persistent rise in ambient temperature.

This article is for people over 18 years of age.

Have you already turned 18?

Global Warming: Myth or Reality?

More and more attention is paid to the issue of global warming. New theories and facts appear every day, old ones are refuted or confirmed. The publications contradict each other, which often leads to misconceptions. Let's try to deal with this issue.

Global warming is understood as the process of an increase in the temperature of the environment (averaged over the year), ocean waters, the surface of the planet, caused by a change in the activity of the Sun, an increase in the emission of harmful gases in the atmosphere and other factors that arise as a by-product of human activity. Let's see what the temperature change threatens us with.

Consequences of global warming

TO the consequences of global warming include:

• climatic changes, which are manifested by abnormal temperatures. Here are some examples this process: severe frosts in winter alternate with a fairly high temperature during the warming period, abnormally hot or cold summer;
• a decrease in the supply of water suitable for consumption;
• a decrease in the yield of many crops;
• the melting of glaciers, which raises the water level in the oceans and leads to the appearance of icebergs;
• increase in the number natural disasters: prolonged droughts, heavy torrential rains in certain regions, which were not typical; destructive hurricanes and tornadoes;
• desertification and the increase in areas unsuitable for life;
• reduction in biological species diversity due to the inability to adapt to new habitat conditions.

Whether it is dangerous for humanity or not, it is impossible to say unequivocally. Question in how quickly he will be able to adapt to new conditions. There is an acute imbalance in quality of life in different regions. Less populated but more developed countries on Earth with all their might are trying to stop the process of destructive anthropogenic influence on environment in while in densely populated, less developed countries the first place is the problem of survival. Global climate change could lead to an even greater increase in this imbalance.

Scientists track signs of changes on the basis of research results chemical composition atmosphere and ocean waters, meteorological observations, changes in the rate at which glaciers are melting, graphs of changes in ice areas.

The rate of formation of icebergs is also investigated. Predictions based on the data obtained provide an idea of ​​the consequences of human influence on ecosystems. Evidence from research shows that the threat lies in the fact that the pace of climate change is increasing every year, so the main challenge is the need to introduce environmentally friendly production methods and restore natural balance.

Historical facts about climate change

Analysis of paleontological data suggests that periods of cold snaps and warming have accompanied the Earth at all times. Cold periods were replaced by warming and vice versa. In the Arctic latitudes in summer, the temperature rose to +13 o C. In contrast, there was a time when there were glaciers in tropical latitudes.

The theory confirms that humanity has witnessed several periods of climate change. There is evidence in historical chronicles that in the 11-13th centuries there was no ice cover on the territory of Greenland, for this reason Norwegian sailors called it "green land". Then came a period of cooling, and the territory of the island was covered with ice. At the beginning of the 20th century, a period of warming began again, as a result of which the areas of glaciers in the mountains and ice of the Arctic Ocean shrank. In the 1940s, there was a short-term cooling, and since the 1980s, an active increase in temperature began throughout the planet.

In the 21st century, the essence of the problem lies in the fact that the influence of anthropogenic factors has been added to the natural causes of changes in the ambient temperature. The pressure on ecosystems is constantly increasing. Its manifestation is observed in all regions of the planet.

Causes of global warming

Scientists are not ready to name exactly what causes the change in climatic conditions. Many theories and hypotheses have a right to exist. The following hypotheses are most common:

1. The oceans affect the climate by accumulating solar energy. The change in currents has a direct impact on the climatic conditions of coastal countries. The air masses that are formed under the influence of these currents regulate the temperature and weather conditions of many countries and continents. The circulation of heat from ocean waters has been little studied. The formation of hurricanes, which then come with destructive force to the continents, is a consequence of disturbances in the circulation of heat in the oceans. Ocean water contains carbon dioxide and other harmful impurities, the concentration of which is several times higher than in the atmosphere. Under certain natural processes, these gases can be released into the atmosphere, which causes further climatic changes on the planet.
2. The smallest changes in solar activity directly affect the Earth's climate. Scientists have identified several cycles of changing solar activity lasting 11, 22 and 80-90 years. It is likely that the increased activity at the present time will decrease, and the air temperature will drop by several degrees.
3. Volcanic activity. According to the studies carried out, during large volcanic eruptions, an initial decrease in air temperature is observed, which is due to the ingress of large volumes of soot and sulfuric acid aerosols into the air. Then there is a significant warming, which is caused by an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide times arising from the eruption of the volcano.
4. Climate change is the result of anthropogenic influence. This hypothesis is the most popular. Comparing the rates of economic and technological growth, population growth and trends in climate change, scientists have come to the conclusion that everything is related to human activities. Side effect active pace of industrial development has become the emission of harmful gases and air pollution. According to the research results, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere creates a so-called shell, which leads to disruption of the planet's heat exchange and a gradual increase in the temperature of the air, the surface of the Earth, and the waters of the oceans.

Solutions to the problem of global warming

According to a number of scientists, if a person tackles the problem of global warming in the coming years, the rate of climate change can be reduced. With the unchanged lifestyle of people, it will not be possible to avoid the fate of dinosaurs.

Scientists propose different ways how to fight and how to stop global warming. The ways to solve the problem of climate change and reduce the burden on the environment are very different: from landscaping areas, breeding new varieties of plants adapted to changing conditions, and ending with the development of new technological processes that will have less impact on nature. In any case, the fight should be aimed not only at solving current problems, but also at preventing negative consequences in the future. Not the least role here is assigned to the reduction of the use of non-renewable energy sources and the transition to the use of renewable ones. Many countries are already switching to geo- and wind energy.

Much attention is paid to the development of regulatory documents, the main task of which is to reduce emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere and preserve biological diversity. This requires significant investments, but as long as people put their own welfare first, it will not be possible to get rid of the problem of climate change and prevent its consequences.

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 the United States and Russia as largest countries who doubted the expediency of this step, unprecedented pressure was exerted (as a result, we were really able to "pressurize").

Considering the huge 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 the far from obvious global consequences, it is worthwhile to analyze once again 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 coming 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 relevant. 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 the sword of Damocles that passed almost the entire end of the 20th century. But the ink under the Montreal Protocol to ban the production of chlorofluorocarbons has not yet dried (skeptics still doubt the reality of the threat and the true motives of the initiators), as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 announced to the world an even more terrible threat of 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 to atone for sins, that is, to put on the altar of the new faith a significant share 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 taken, 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. In addition, the Russian authorities have never sinned punctually in observing laws and fulfilling their 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 give a lower value than ground-based measurements - only 0.2 ° C. At the same time, doubts remain about the adequacy of 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 quite natural causes of such and even more noticeable climatic fluctuations, and 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, 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 the desired effect, they must 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 causes of an anthropogenic nature." These words were later replaced by others: “The balance of evidence suggests a clear human influence on 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 rate of growth in 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 whole 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 continuing growth of production and, accordingly, anthropogenic emissions 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 famous domestic specialists in this area (AL Yanshin, MI Budyko, YA Izrael. Global warming and its consequences: Strategy of the measures taken. In collection: Global problems of the biosphere. - M .: Nauka, 2003).

“The study of changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere in the geological past has shown that 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 during the Pleistocene glacial epochs, 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 epoch, 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 specialists in this field confidently give a negative answer to both questions. Can we predict the technogenic 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 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 the century. Considering that all other industries (for example, electronics and communications) are evolving much faster, it is better not to guess more than 30 years ahead. As a curious example showing the cost of bolder forecasts, one often recalls the fears of futurists of the late 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 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 of the economic activity of primitive man - a hunter of 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, an increase in global temperature does not pose a real threat to the existence of mankind (and even more to life on Earth, as it is sometimes claimed). The consequences of the large-scale restructuring of the climate expected today can be well understood by considering the Pliocene epoch, which is relatively close to us (the period from 5 to 1.8 million years ago), when the first direct human ancestors appeared. The average surface temperature then exceeded the 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 Northern 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 them 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 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. 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 energy sources, this tax should already be from 70 to 660 dollars. for 1 t.

The costs of fulfilling the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol are estimated at 1-2% of world GDP, while the 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 the "green" movements often do not realize that absolutely all environmental protection measures require consumption of resources and energy and, like any type of production activity, cause undesirable environmental consequences. From point of view 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, such as solar panels, agricultural machinery, hydrocarbon fuel, 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 activity are associated with smoking factory chimneys or the dead surface of abandoned quarries and industrial dumps. Indeed, the contribution to environmental poisoning of such industries as metallurgy, chemical industry, energy is great. But idyllic agricultural lands, well-groomed 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. A blooming garden, lake or river, maintained in a stationary state on the basis of an open circuit of substances with maximized 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 sustainability 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 that is 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 be beneficial for most crops. This becomes clear if we recall that the genera to which modern cultivated plants belong 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 a doubling of 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 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 foundation of European civilization and culture.

Therefore, 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 the Europeans to fight for the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. It's no secret that Western Europe consumes about 16% of the world's energy resources. An acute 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 an ingenious move: to impose the same strict energy consumption standards on potential competitors, and at the same time create a market for selling our energy-saving technologies. The Americans have refused to voluntarily impose restrictions that undermine their economies and are beneficial to 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 whose more than 60% of its territory is located in the permafrost zone, reaching almost to our southern border in Transbaikalia, it is somehow ridiculous 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 the "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, 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, given the projected rates of development of the Russian economy, even before 2012, we will have to think not about selling, but about buying quotas. Unless, for the sake of demonstrating European unity, we 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 the Russian production of aerosols and refrigeration equipment. And the domestic market was captured by foreign, mainly Western European manufacturers. Unfortunately, now history is repeating itself: energy saving is by no means the strongest side of the Russian energy sector and we do not have our own energy-saving technologies ...

The glaring 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 match them. According to modern concepts, tropical rainforests, which are sometimes called the "lungs of the planet", absorb about the same amount of CO 2 as released during the destruction of the organic matter they produce. But the forests of the temperate zone north of 30 ° N. NS. 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 the emission of greenhouse gases is not controlled, then by 2100 the concentration of carbon dioxide may increase by 30-150% compared to the current level. This can lead to an increase in the average global temperature of the earth's surface by 1-3.5 ° С by 2100 (with significant regional variations in this value), which will undoubtedly cause serious consequences for the ecosphere and economic activity. 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 humanity 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 in the distant future climate change. For their part, the Americans, who perfectly understand 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 fall on the technologically backward energy of developing countries, which does not fall under the regulation of 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 violation of the biosphere balance by civilization, and from this point of view, as a pastoral-patriarchal Agriculture and the dream of the "green" - "renewable" energy is no less a threat than the 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 biosphere land products 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, debugged 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 throughout human history, the processes of the emergence of new, more and more complex biological, and then historical and technological forms of organization of matter have been continuously accelerated. 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 be considered only 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 the 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 the negative consequences of 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 Earth's surface will be the beginning of a 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 doesn't mean warming at all everywhere and Anytime... This warming occurs only if the temperature is averaged over all geographic locations and all seasons. For example, in some area, the average summer temperature may increase and the average winter temperature may decrease, that is, the climate will become more continental.

According to one hypothesis, global warming will lead to a halt or a serious weakening of the Gulf Stream. This will cause a significant drop in the average temperature in Europe (while the temperature in other regions will rise, but not necessarily in all), since the Gulf Stream heats the continent due to the transfer of warm water from the tropics.

According to the hypothesis of climatologists M. Ewing and W. Donn, there is an oscillatory process in cryoere, in which glaciation (ice age) is generated by climate warming, and deglaciation (exit from the ice age) by cooling. This is due to the fact that in the Cenozoic, which is a cryoer, during the thawing of the ice caps, the amount of precipitation increases in high latitudes, which in winter leads to a local increase in albedo, followed by a decrease in the temperature of the deep regions of the continents of the northern hemisphere, followed by the formation of glaciers. When the ice caps freeze, glaciers in the deep regions of the continents of the northern hemisphere, not receiving sufficient recharge in the form of precipitation, begin to thaw.

The danger of climate warming.

As a result of the combustion of various fuels, about 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere annually and the corresponding amount of oxygen is absorbed. The natural reserve of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 50,000 billion tons. This value fluctuates and depends, in particular, on volcanic activity. However, anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions exceed natural ones and currently account for a large share of its total amount. An increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, accompanied by an increase in the amount of aerosol (small particles of dust, soot, suspensions of solutions of some chemical compounds), can lead to noticeable changes in climate and, accordingly, to disruption of the equilibrium bonds in the biosphere that have developed over millions of years.

The result of a violation of the transparency of the atmosphere, and, consequently, of the heat balance may be the appearance of the "greenhouse effect", that is, an increase in the average temperature of the atmosphere by several degrees. This can cause the melting of glaciers in the polar regions, an increase in the level of the World Ocean, changes in its salinity, temperature, global climate disturbances, flooding of coastal lowlands and many other adverse consequences.

Emissions of industrial gases into the atmosphere, including compounds such as carbon monoxide CO ( carbon monoxide), oxides of nitrogen, sulfur, ammonia and other pollutants, leads to inhibition of the vital activity of plants and animals, metabolic disorders, poisoning and death of living organisms.

"Greenhouse effect" . According to the latest data from scientists, for the 80s. the average air temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased compared to the end of the 19th century. by 0.5-0.6 "C. According to forecasts, by the beginning of 2000, the average temperature on the planet may increase by 1.2" C compared to the pre-industrial era. Scientists associate such an increase in temperature primarily with an increase in the content of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide) and aerosols in the atmosphere. This leads to excessive absorption of thermal radiation from the Earth by the air. Obviously, a certain role in the creation of the so-called "greenhouse effect" is played by the heat released from thermal power plants and nuclear power plants.

Climate warming can lead to intensive melting of glaciers and a rise in the level of the World Ocean. The changes that may result from this are simply difficult to predict.

The solution to this problem could be by reducing carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere and balancing the carbon cycle. The generally accepted estimates of meteorologists show that an increase in the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in temperature almost only in high latitudes, especially in the northern hemisphere, where "there was a giant glaciation very recently." Moreover, this warming will mainly occur in winter. According to a specialist from the Institute of Agricultural Meteorology of Roskomhydromet, a doubling of CO2 concentration will lead to a doubling of Russia's economic useful area from 5 to 11 million km2. In terms of economic usable area, Russia now occupies a modest fifth place in the world after Brazil, the USA, Australia and China. The greatest effect of warming will have Russia, in which the western border runs approximately along the January isotherm of 0 ° C.

Domestic "greens" mechanically repeat about the danger of warming, not realizing that they live in a cold country. With the expected warming in most regions of Russia, the climate will become very favorable, close to subtropical. The non-chernozem low-productive zone of central Russia will become fertile, the duration of the agricultural year in it will triple, the Kuban will turn into a savanna, in Siberia, frosts will stop and cotton will be grown there, and the northern sea route will be freed from ice and will become the most economical sea route between Europe and the Far East. ... It is important that warming due to higher temperatures will occur mainly in winter. Summer in Russia will remain practically the same relatively not hot. Moreover, this increase in temperature will occur several years after an increase in the concentration of CO 2, since there is no mainland ice for a long time, and the heating time of the atmosphere does not exceed two months.In the climate of low latitudes, doubling of the CO 2 concentration will practically not affect, unless the north wind will be there in winter as cold as it is now. Before the onset of the last ice age, the average temperature of the Earth was 5-6 ° C higher, and walnut forests grew in the Yakutsk region.