Myth and the reality of global warming / Blog of the company Sci-One / SurprizingFacts

With this conspiracy theory, there can be compared only the story of a fake flight to the Moon. Its supporters believe, convince others, beat themselves in the chest … But do you understand the reality or myth – global warming? If not, then be sure to check out our new issue with Alexander Sergeyev about the myth and the 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 scientific policy. By the way, his controversy takes place only among politicians and those who are interested in this policy. But among the narrow specialists in climatology there are no disputes on this issue. Why are we still arguing about the warming of the climate and what is really happening in this area?
In general, first of all you need to agree – the climate should not be confused with the weather. Weather – this is what is happening in this particular place of the Earth today or this summer. The weather can be abnormal in one area or another. These anomalies can be very large, fluctuations are more significant from year to year and, it must be said, recently the scale of these anomalies increases (especially with climate change)

Only in Russia according to the Ministry of Natural Resources , The number of natural disasters – floods, floods, mudflows and hurricanes – almost quadrupled from 1990 to 2010 and continues to increase by about 6-7% per year. Russians could most of all remember the heat of 2010, the super-cold winter of 2012, the incomprehensible summer of 2017. All this – weather fluctuations, which become particularly harsh due to global changes in the climate. Approximately the same thing happens in other regions of our planet.

Alexander Sergeev: " The climate is not the weather for a year (or even five years). It is believed that the climate can be seriously talked about at a scale of 30 years, well, at the extreme, 10 years (this is such a rough estimate, because only on this stretch the climate begins to somehow average the fluctuations occurring year after year).

The graph of the warming. GIF 29Mb

So, the climate is warming all over the Earth, starting around the end of the 19th century and up to our time. In this case, the warming is not quite evenly – the initial warming was going on from about 1910 to the 1940s, then it stopped slightly and even went back by 0.1 °. Then it resumed with renewed vigor and went on until the beginning of the 21st century, then again a little slowed down (but it did not go back, it just slowed down), and now the last few years have again gone forward and again even stronger.
There is no doubt today that there is a warming of the climate. 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 issues. This is more than even the level of recognition of the theory of evolution among biologists. That is, there are practically no doubts today – there is a warming.
Of course, we can argue about the causes of warming, because we understand that the climate is clearly under the influence of many factors
. "

During the day, the temperature sometimes changes by tens of degrees, we are accustomed to this. But the change of only 2 ° in the whole on the planet leads, in the perspective of decades, to serious global consequences. What causes the planet to change its temperature?
For example, small variations in the slope of the axis and the shape of the earth's orbit cause a periodic onset of glaciers. But these changes are significant on a scale of tens of thousands of years, they can not be attributed to the sharp warming of the climate for tens or hundreds of years:

Orbit change. GIF 4.6Mb

What about the sun? – Its radiation, as far as scientists can judge by all available measurements, is stable, with an accuracy of a tenth of a percent.
So the current warming of its influence is also not explained. Or maybe the volcanoes are to blame? And again, no. On the contrary – their aerosol emissions lower the temperature, but they give little greenhouse gases (but more on this later). And what if not separately, but all together these natural factors worked? Alas:

Solar influence, activity of volcanoes. Natural factors. GIF 13.6Mb

Here you will find parsing and other factors with a detailed description of the methods for calculating data.

Today, science knows only one factor that affects the climate on a global scale – greenhouse gases. This is methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, water vapor and many others, but not one in the last century so did not add in volumes like carbon dioxide. The growth curve of the average temperature on the planet practically repeats the graph of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Other anthropogenic factors – landscape change and aerosol emissions – only slightly inhibit the warming caused by greenhouse gases:

Accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. GIF 8.4Mb

Alexander Sergeev: " And now, what is the" Greenhouse effect ". Many doubt whether there is such a thing at all. Here gentlemen doubting urgently should go to buy fur coats, because as soon as, according to their belief, the greenhouse effect "turns off" – we will have an average of -15 ° on the planet.
Our planet is at such a distance from the Sun that if the atmosphere did not create a greenhouse effect, then the balance would be set at about -15 ° / -18 °, which is the characteristic temperature for the Earth. The atmosphere keeps heat. In what sense does it hold? – There are many incorrect 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 been roasted here long ago, because the temperature would have been growing all the time.
The Earth receives as much energy from the Sun as it radiates back into space due to the infrared radiation of the atmosphere, and also from a part of the visible radiation of the surface. That is, everything that we receive from the Sun – everything and emit. In fact, we emit a little more, because some of the heat seeps from within 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 °, but goes back with the same equilibrium temperature of -15 °, only this temperature is observed not at the surface of the Earth, but at an altitude of 5-6 km above the Earth's surface – Transparent in the infrared range, where the main radiation flux leaves. And on the deeper layers of the atmosphere, the "opacity" of the atmosphere higher in this range does not allow the heat to escape directly – the energy accumulates a little in this surface layer of the air and heats the surface, but gradually it seeps out and still leaves. The only question is how high it leaves – from a height of 5 km or 6 km. If we increase the CO2 content, the heat goes away from a higher altitude, and if it leaves from a higher altitude, then here, on Earth, we will be deeper in the warming atmosphere and therefore we will be warmer. This is one of the explanations for the greenhouse effect. Another explanation is just a delay

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

Greenhouse effect. GIF 19Mb

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

Alexander Sergeev: " The greenhouse effect is an absolutely reliable thing, established and it fully corresponds to measurements of emissions from mining operations, from measurements of the CO2 content in the atmosphere … There simply are no problems, and so Should warm up on Earth – due to the greenhouse effect. It all converges. There are other factors, for example, some movements in the ocean, currents. Modern climate models take into account most of these factors. The warming of the climate by modern (more precisely not by modern, already old, past) climatic models is predicted from the second half of the 1980s. Before that, they were quite simple calculations, and good, serious computer models appeared in the 1980s. Then, the warming of the climate was explained, this explanation has not gone away and it has been checked for 30 years and 30 years is confirmed by the inflow and registration of new data, new factors, refinement of 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 is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions, 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 is it widespread among the population, politicians, even among scientists of other specialties, That climate warming is either random fluctuations, or even an artifact, or falsification? "

This topic is also liked by journalists. Especially connoisseurs of conspiracy theories and all sorts of revelations. The observer of Novaya Gazeta recently wrote:

The teaching of Global Warming is not really a science, but an ideology. It is an ideal ideology for a global bureaucracy that wants to regulate everything and everything … It is built exactly on the same principle of the obscenities of the average person that 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 turning into blood and locusts with golden wreaths.

Julia Latynina, "We will be taken warm," Novaya Gazeta, June 5, 2017

In this article, so it turned out, the author reproduced, perhaps, the main classical ideas of opponents of the theory of global warming. Therefore, the answer of the scientist-climatologist in Gazeta.ru with the detailed expert analysis is so interesting – in what the journalist is mistaken, and where does misinform.

Alexander Sergeev: " So why among the population, politicians, even among scientists of other specialties, there is a very widespread idea that climate warming is either random fluctuations, or even an artifact, or falsification? – This is a very interesting question, which does not apply to the issue of climate studies. 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 many believers do not recognize the theory of evolution, 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 by them by certain purposeful actions. I will in a nutshell designate what it is – very many people just do not want to believe in the bad that something bad is happening to us. They prefer simple explanations. "Come on, the man is small and the Earth is big. Well, where do we get to warm the big Earth to a small humanity? Yes, one big volcano will throw more than your industry in one year for 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 does not know the details of climate warming): "Do you think that gives more CO2 emissions – volcanic activity or human industry?". He sat for a while and said: "Look, I was never interested in the issue of CO2 emissions – for professional reasons, I was interested in emissions of completely different substances, CO2 is not an essential and not the most important component for volcanic studies. So I can not evaluate, I have to go and count. " That is, a person who professionally volcanoes does not know how many are thrown out because it is not very important. And our opponents of global warming say with confidence: "Yes, of course, more than our entire industry!" So there is not more. If you check the data, it's about 2 orders of magnitude shorter . "

Massed volcanic eruption will lead to global cooling rather than warming. This year without the summer was 1816 – the coldest in the history of meteorological observations. In early June, snow fell in Europe – snowdrifts were cleaned in Bavaria and England. In August, frosts strike at all, crop failures everywhere. The most desperate run away from hunger to America, but even there people did not have enough grain in most regions. And all this is due to the eruption of the Tambor volcano in Indonesia, that is, in the opposite hemisphere. Ashes were thrown out not less than a week, in the radius of 600 km there was an absolute darkness. In Europe and America, the effects of the eruption were felt a few months later, when ash and sulfur gases, thrown into the stratosphere, formed aerosols and they dispersed all over the Earth. Aerosols retained part of the solar radiation, not passing it to the surface of the planet – there was the effect of a volcanic winter.

Alexander Sergeev: " And there are a lot of such arguments, for example," Come on, you! Now warming, and now remember the small ice age, when the Thames froze. And before that there was a climatic optimum and everything in Greenland was green, why it is so called … ". People, again, do not know how much it was fluctuations, and fluctuations in global temperature in the small glacial period and the climatic optimum that preceded it were ± 0.5 °. And now we have already almost 1.5 ° and in the future – no signs of a slowdown in growth. Thus, this objection from the category of simply misunderstanding, ignorance of the magnitude of the values, the lack of knowledge of specific data, but the desire to think that everything is fine. They are ready to turn a blind eye to any scientific arguments, because, as you know, and I have repeatedly said that in natural science there is no 100% proof, there is only a greater or lesser degree of certainty. Therefore, you can always demand "Give us 100% proof!", Gave another – "No, it's not 100%, it's 97%!" Give us 99%! ", Gave 99% -" No! It's not 100%! ".
Science says unequivocally – there is no other competing model that could for today supersede the notion of anthropogenic global warming associated with the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There is now no alternative and 30 years already no. Well, politicians and the population can for some reason feel uncomfortable. That's what you have to do with it
. "

We remind you that this was the decoding of our video "Understand for 16 minutes: the myth and reality of global warming" (video just in case we attach again):

Useful links on the topic:

Let science be with you.

About the author


Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *