Myth and reality of global warming

With this conspiracy theory can be compared only the story about the fake flight to the moon . Her supporters believe, convince others, beat themselves in the chest ... But do you understand whether reality or myth is global warming? If not, be sure to check out our new issue with Alexander Sergeyev about the myth and reality of global warming. And under the cut you will find the decoding of this video, the most adapted for reading.







Alexander Sergeev: “ This is one of the most controversial issues of modern science policy. By the way, his controversy takes place only among politicians and those who are interested in this policy. But among the narrow climatology specialists there are no disputes on this issue. Why are we still arguing about climate warming and what is really happening in this area?



In general, the first thing you need to agree - the climate is not confused with the weather. Weather is what is happening in this particular place on Earth today or this summer. The weather may be abnormal in one area or another. These anomalies can be very large, fluctuations are significant from year to year and, I must say, in recent times (especially with climate change) the magnitude of these anomalies is somewhat increasing . ”



Only in Russia, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources , the number of natural disasters - floods, floods, streams and hurricanes - increased almost 4 times from 1990 to 2010, and continues to increase by about 6-7% per year. The Russians most of all could remember the heat of 2010, the super-cold winter of 2012, the incomprehensible summer of 2017. All of these are weather fluctuations that are becoming especially sharp due to global changes in climate. Roughly the same thing happens in other regions of our planet.



Alexander Sergeev: “ Climate is not the weather for a year (or even five years). It is believed that you can seriously talk about climate on a scale of 30 years, well, at the very least, 10 years (this is already such a rough estimate, because only in this segment does the climate somehow more or less average fluctuations occurring from year to year).





So, the climate is warming all over the Earth, beginning around the end of the 19th century and up to our time. At the same time, the warming does not go quite evenly - the initial warming went from about the 1910s to the 1940s, then it stopped a little and went back even by 0.1 °. Then it resumed with a new force and went about until the beginning of the 21st century, then slowed down a little bit (but did not go back, but just slowed down), and now the last few years have gone forward again and again stronger.

There is no doubt today that climate warming is. If we talk about the level of scientific consensus on this issue, it is 97% if we talk about professional climatologists who are actively published on climatology. This is even more than the level of recognition of the theory of evolution among biologists. That is, there is practically no doubt today - there is warming.

Of course, we can argue about the causes of warming, because we understand that the climate is clearly influenced by many factors . ”



During the day, the temperature sometimes changes to tens of degrees, we are used to it. But a change of only 2 ° on the planet as a whole leads, over a period of tens of years, to serious global consequences. What makes the planet change its temperature?



For example, small variations in the inclination of the axis and the shape of the Earth's orbit cause periodic glacier advance. But these changes are significant on the scale of tens of thousands of years; they cannot be blamed on the dramatic warming of the climate over tens or hundreds of years:





What about the sun? - Its radiation, as far as scientists can judge by all available measurements, is stable, with an accuracy of one tenth of a percent.



So the current warming of his influence is also not explained. Or maybe volcanoes are to blame? And no again. On the contrary - their aerosol emissions reduce the temperature, and they give little greenhouse gases (but more on that later). And what if not separately, but all these natural factors worked together? Alas:





Here you will find analysis of other factors with a detailed description of data calculation methods.



Today, science knows only one factor that is so influencing the climate on a global scale - greenhouse gases . These are methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, water vapor and many others, but not one in the last century has added in volumes as much as carbon dioxide. The growth curve of the average temperature on the planet almost repeats the schedule of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Other anthropogenic factors — changes in landscapes and aerosol emissions — are only slightly holding back warming caused by greenhouse gases:





Alexander Sergeev: “ Now what is the“ Greenhouse Effect ”. Many doubt whether there is such a thing at all. Here, gentlemen who are in doubt, should urgently go to buy fur coats, because as soon as the greenhouse effect is turned off according to their belief, we will have an average of -15 ° around the planet.



Our planet is at such a distance from the Sun that if the atmosphere did not create the greenhouse effect, the balance would be established at about -15 ° / -18 ° - this is the characteristic temperature for the Earth. The atmosphere keeps warm. In what sense does it hold? - There are many wrong explanations for the greenhouse effect. The most incorrect thing is that some of the heat that comes from the sun, as a result of the greenhouse effect, remains on the surface of the Earth. And if this were so, then we would have long been roasted here, because the temperature would grow all the time.



The Earth receives from the Sun as much energy as it radiates back into space due to the infrared radiation of the atmosphere, and from a part of the visible radiation of the surface. That is all that we get from the Sun - and emit everything. In fact, we still emit a little more, because some of the heat still seeps from inside the Earth ( geothermal heat ), but its magnitude is very small compared to solar heat. So all the solar heat leaves the Earth back in the form of infrared radiation . It comes in the form of radiation from a solar surface with a temperature of 5500 °, and goes back with that equilibrium temperature of -15 °, only this temperature is observed not on the Earth’s surface, but approximately at a height of 5-6 km above the Earth’s surface - this is where the atmosphere becomes transparent in the infrared, where the main radiation flux goes. And in the deeper layers of the atmosphere, the “opacity” of the atmosphere higher in this range does not allow heat to go directly - energy accumulates a little in this surface layer of air and warms the surface, but gradually it seeps out and still goes away. The only question is from what height does it leave - from a height of 5 km or 6 km. If our CO2 content increases, then heat leaves from a higher altitude, and if it leaves from a higher altitude, then here, on Earth, we will be deeper in a warming atmosphere, which means we will be warmer. This is one explanation of the greenhouse effect. Another explanation is just a delay . ”



Without the greenhouse effect, the temperature at the Earth's surface would be 30 ° lower than now, that is, about -15 °. To understand why this is so - you need to consider the surface and the atmosphere separately.





The planet constantly receives the energy of the Sun, this energy already in the form of heat, it radiates back into space (this phenomenon is called radiant equilibrium). But most of the energy is given precisely by the atmosphere, and not the surface of the earth. Only 10% of the energy from the Earth’s surface goes into space, the rest is taken up by clouds and greenhouse gases. But they also do not collect energy for reserve, and also emit it - half goes back to the surface of the Earth. And so it is repeated again and again - the heat is delayed before being dispersed into space. This effect is called greenhouse.



Alexander Sergeev: “The greenhouse effect is an absolutely reliable thing, installed and it is fully consistent with measurements of emissions from mining, from measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere ... There is simply no problem and that is how it should warm up on Earth - due to the greenhouse effect. It all fits together. There are other factors, for example, some movements in the ocean, currents. Modern climate models take into account most of these factors. Climate warming by modern (more precisely, no longer modern, already old, past) climatic models has been predicted since the second half of the 1980s. Before that, they were very simple calculations, and good, serious computer models appeared in the 1980s. Then climate warming was explained, this explanation has not gone away and it has been checked for 30 years and 30 years confirmed by the influx and taking into account new data, new factors, refining models, with a significant increase in the accuracy of temperature measurements and other parameters from satellites ... everything fits in the model according to which it gets warmer due to emissions of greenhouse gases, first of all CO2, secondly methane and others. And now the question arises - if science has a good model, this model is time-tested, this model is consistent with all other scientific ideas, this model is supported by 97% of specialists ... Why do the population, politicians, even among scientists of other specialties, that climate warming is either random fluctuations, or an artifact at all, or falsification? "



Journalists also love this topic. Especially connoisseurs of conspiracy theories and all sorts of revelations. The Novaya Gazeta observer recently wrote:

Global Warming Teaching is not really a science, but an ideology. This is the ideal ideology for the global bureaucracy, which wants to regulate everything and everyone ... It is built exactly on the same principle of curbing the philistine as the idea of ​​the Apocalypse, the Second Coming and the Last Judgment. The theologians of Global Warming scare humanity with the same things as John the Theologian: droughts, floods, waters turned into blood and the locusts with golden crowns.



Yulia Latynina, “We will be taken warm,” Novaya Gazeta, June 5, 2017

In this article, as it happens, the author reproduces, perhaps, the main classical ideas of opponents of the theory of global warming. Therefore, the answer of the climate scientist in Gazeta.ru is so interesting with a detailed expert analysis - what the journalist is mistaken about and where he completely misinforms.



Alexander Sergeev: “ So why among the population, politicians, even among scientists of other specialties, the idea that climate warming is either random fluctuations, or an artifact, or falsification, is very widespread? - This is a very interesting question that does not apply to the issue of climate research. This is a question that relates to research on the theory of memes - what makes people think completely differently from what science says? We know that the theory of evolution is not recognized by many believers, because it contradicts the literal understanding of Scripture. So, the theory of climate warming contradicts some very important archetypes of consciousness that are common among people and even artificially supported in them by certain targeted actions. In a nutshell, I’ll point out what it is - so many people just don’t want to believe in the bad, that something bad is happening to us. They prefer simple explanations “Come on, man is small and Earth is big. Well, where are we to heat the big Earth to a small humanity? Yes, one big volcano will emit more than your industry in a year in one eruption! ” Check these data for reliable sources, look for articles that estimate the amount of CO2 emissions in a volcanic eruption. So today I asked my father (he is a professional volcanologist and he is not aware of the details of climate warming): “Do you think that it gives more CO2 emissions - volcanic activity or human industry?”. He sat for a while and said: “Listen, I have never been interested in the issue of CO2 emissions - for professional reasons I was interested in emissions of completely different substances, CO2 is not a significant component and not the most important component for volcanological studies. Therefore, I can not evaluate, I have to go and count. " That is, a person engaged in professional volcanoes, does not know how much is thrown there because it is not very important. And our opponents of global warming say with confidence “Yes, of course, more than all of our industry!”. So no more. If you check the data - then about 2 orders of magnitude less . "



Massive eruption of volcanoes will more likely lead to global cooling than warming. This year without summer was 1816 - the coldest in the entire history of meteorological observations. In early June, the snow fell in Europe - drifts cleaned in Bavaria and England. In August frosts hit completely, crop failure everywhere. The most desperate are fleeing hunger to America, but even there people lacked grain in most regions. And all this because of the eruption of the volcano Tambor in Indonesia, that is, in the opposite hemisphere. Ashes were thrown away for at least a week, in a radius of 600 km there was total darkness. In Europe and America, the effects of the eruption were felt several months later, when ash and sulphurous gases thrown into the stratosphere formed aerosols and they spread throughout the Earth. Aerosols delayed part of the solar radiation, not passing it to the surface of the planet - the effect of volcanic winter appeared .



Alexander Sergeev: “ And there are a lot of such arguments, for example,“ Come on, you! Now is warming, but remember the small ice age , when the Thames was frozen. And before that there was a climatic optimum and everything was green in Greenland, why it was so named ... ”. People, again, are not aware of how much these fluctuations were, and the fluctuations around the global temperature in the Little Ice Age and the climatic optimum that preceded it were ± 0.5 °. And now we have almost 1.5 ° and in the future - no signs of slowing growth. Thus, this objection from the category of simply misunderstanding, ignorance of the magnitude of the magnitudes, non-possession of specific data, but the desire to think that all is well. They are ready to close their eyes to any scientific arguments, because, as you know, I have often said about this that in natural science there is no 100% evidence, there is only a greater or lesser degree of confidence. Therefore, we can always demand “Give us 100% proof!”, They gave them again - “No, this is not 100%, this is 97%! Give us 99%! ”, Gave 99% -“ No! This is not 100%! ”



Science says unequivocally - there is no other competing model that could today displace the idea of ​​anthropogenic global warming associated with emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There is no alternative now and 30 years have gone. Well, for some reason it is inconvenient for politicians and the public to admit it. So deal with it . ”

---

We remind you that this was the decoding of our video “To understand in 16 minutes: the myth and the reality of global warming” (we are attaching the video just in case):







Useful links on the topic:

• NASA about CO2
• Charts for all global warming factors + methodology description
• Article on the conspiracy of the global bureaucracy
• Climatologist's answer to the plot article
• Scientific consensus on GP
• Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the Earth and the influence of volcanism
• Global warming

May science be with you.