Because of melting permafrost, it will be difficult to live in the summer in the north
The average temperature around the globe is rising, and this promises a number of problems for Russia. In particular, due to noticeable warming, agrarians may face severe drought, and reindeer herders in Yakutia may get bogged down in a swamp due to melting permafrost. Leading Research Fellow, Moscow State University Lomonosov Alexei YELISEEV told MK:
— What awaits us in the next 50 years: warming or cooling;
— Which states are waiting for the flood from rising water levels in the ocean;
>
– What is the most effective remedy for global warming.
Photo courtesy of A. Eliseev
Recall that in mid-March in Interlaken, Switzerland, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the generalized conclusions of the Sixth Global Climate Assessment Report over the past 10 years. According to them, by 2100 we can expect an increase in the average surface temperature by 5 degrees. In this regard, anxiety is growing around the world, there is an opinion that the ocean that has risen due to such warming will flood many coastal regions, and the “great migration of peoples” will begin in the world…
< p>– Let me remind you that there are different scales of climate change: for 100 million years, for tens of thousands of years, for several hundred years and for 60 years.
Let's start with the longest scale. Scientists managed to «look» into the past climate for 50 million years. This was done by studying the remains of ancient organisms from oceanic sediments, or rather the ratio of oxygen and carbon isotopes in them. So, according to these studies, the last 50 million years on Earth as a whole there has been a cooling of the climate, according to a number of estimates, by an average of 10-15 degrees compared to the previous warm period. It is known that about 35 million years ago Antarctica glacied (the Antarctic ice sheet formed), about 3.5 million years ago Greenland glacied. In the interval of 2-2.5 million years ago, scientists recorded the development of fluctuations «glacial cycle — interglacial». At first they changed with a frequency of 40 thousand years, then the period stretched to 110-120 thousand years.
— It is known that glaciation cycles depend on changes in the parameters of the Earth's orbit. But since the orbit has several parameters, and each of them changes with its own periodicity, the proportion of interglacials and glaciations for different cycles turns out to be different. This is an established fact. We are now in an interglacial period called the Holocene.
— Approximately 12,000 years ago. And, according to the old theory, everyone thought that we were already on the way to a new ice age, which was only a few thousand years away.
— Now we believe that the interglacial period in which we live is much longer: not 12-15 thousand years, but about 40-50 thousand years. This is evidenced by the latest data from climate science. In particular, it has been established that 400 thousand years ago there was already an «extended» interglacial period — from 30 to 40 thousand years. Therefore, 10 thousand years after the end of one glaciation, it is not worth waiting with confidence for the onset of another.
— Changes in the force of attraction of other planets, changes in the speed of rotation of the Earth around the Sun, changes in the inclination of the axis of its rotation. There are exact calculations of the parameters of the change in the Earth's orbit for 5 million years ago and for 5 million years ahead, which were made by the Austrian astronomer Lyaskar at the beginning of the 2000s. There was an analysis back in the 1970s by the French geophysicist André Berger. According to modern calculations, the configuration of the earth's orbit in the next 50 thousand years will not allow glaciation to begin.
– Before answering this question, I want to clarify that, in general, climate trends are calculated based on two sets of mechanisms. The first is external influences (parameters of the Earth's rotation, modern anthropogenic activity, volcanic eruptions), the second is associated with natural climate variability.
And this second set of mechanisms has been poorly studied for a long time. Approximately 30 years ago, it was found that there are natural fluctuations with periods of 60-70 years. Over the past 200 years, since the beginning of instrumental measurements, scientists have established about three such periods. The last downward phase of such a period, the so-called «natural» cooling, was recorded in the early 1970s.
— Yes, it started right before the Great Patriotic War. Then, as now, the Arctic was free of ice for about two summer months, the Soviet Union organized the Northern Sea Route without the use of icebreakers.
– Don't forget that we're talking about global warming, not regional. They may not look alike.
— Compared to the current one, it is small, about tenths of a degree. But in the Arctic, it (as, indeed, now) significantly exceeded the global average.
– Yes, approximately, since the mid-1970s, we entered the upward phase of the oscillation, which led to us to maximum warming in the 90s. 1998 was a very warm year. Then warming slowed down in the 2000s and the first half of the 1920s — this is the so-called «warming pause» — after which it accelerated again.
— Exactly! The next decade was still warmer than the previous one.
— They didn't stray by themselves — a man brought them down. Climatologists have come to the conclusion that the natural trend towards a decrease in the temperature of the planet has collided with an external anthropogenic factor in the heating of the atmosphere — the emission of greenhouse gases. They compensated for the natural cooling of the ocean conveyor (one of its parts is the Gulf Stream Strait — Auth.) and prevented the change in the direction of the thermometer column during the warming pause.
— Accurate enough. Since the beginning of the 2000s, meteorological satellites have been actively launched into space all over the world, a fleet of marine drones has appeared that dive to a depth of a kilometer or more and transmit water temperature, salt content, etc. to the surface. Let me remind you that we compare modern temperature data with «climate fingerprints» mined from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Samples of the atmosphere of the past are sealed in it with an unchanged chemical composition (content of greenhouse gases).
– Can the anthropogenic factor interrupt the natural cycle of the vast Earth and even such global things as the inclination of the Earth's orbit and the influence of other planets?
— That's the right question. If we compare the energy costs that the whole world spends on industrial production and transport (1 petajoule, that is, 10 to 15 Joules), we will see that the energy of one weather vortex exceeds this figure by 10 thousand (!) Times and even more. And on Earth, hundreds of such vortices can rage simultaneously. Therefore, a direct calculation of the release of energy due to human activity has little effect. It's not about the direct energy from burning fossil fuels, but about the greenhouse gases contained in emissions. It is their accumulation in the atmosphere that significantly increases the subsequent heating. Greenhouse gas intercepts radiation coming from the Earth into space and re-radiates it, moreover, in different directions — both up and down. In other words, part of the energy, having collided with greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, is sent to the Earth again, heating the system twice.
– Water vapor is not considered as an external factor influencing the climate, it is built into the structure of systemic relationships within the Earth's climate. Due to additional heating, it begins to evaporate into the atmosphere in much larger volumes. As a result, its moisture capacity increases and the greenhouse effect increases. This is called classical feedback.
— Yes, according to data obtained in 21-22, the water level rose between 1990 and 2022 by 20 centimeters. It depends on 2/3 of the expansion of the ocean (when the distance between water molecules increases from heating), and 1/3 on the melting of ice sheets and mountain glaciers.
— Nothing . According to the law of Archimedes, in the solid state, icebergs displace exactly as much as they then fill when they melt.
— Yes, it does not even affect the shift of the coastline, and I hasten to assure you that nothing terrible will happen during our lifetime due to the gradual rise of the water.
— Only coastal cities located close to sea level, for example, some settlements in England, our St. Petersburg, can suffer from rising water levels. In the worst-case scenario, that is, an increase in the average temperature on the planet by about 5 degrees by 2100, the water could rise by 1 meter, and their territories could indeed decrease. But the rise of water even by 1 meter is considered unlikely — such a scenario is considered provided that for the remaining 70 years we will also mindlessly burn fossil fuels, as now, and part of the ice sheets will become unstable, which is very unlikely. If we switch to low-emission technologies, then the maximum that threatens us is a rise in water by half a meter by 2100. It has also been calculated that if the whole of Greenland melts, this will give a rise in water of 7 meters. But for such a “furnace” the temperature should rise at a record high for about 10 thousand years.
— This will give only half a meter rise in world sea level.
— Not necessary — a meter rise is easily corrected by building a dam .
— Quite.
— This is only at first glance. If the permafrost melts during warming, both Russia and Canada will “float” the entire infrastructure that was built based on frozen ground, including foundations for oil and gas pipelines. 2/3 of the territory of our country, as a result of thawing permafrost, can turn into a kind of swamp, unsuitable for useful use. With warming, methane emissions from peatlands may increase.
Don't forget about the spread of diseases, too. The fact that we do not now have some kind of yellow fever is only because we have a northern climate.
Separately, it is worth noting the change in the nature of precipitation from heavy to heavy rainfall, as well as floods and droughts. In dry weather, lightning strikes from thunderclouds can lead to frequent forest fires. Already now, showers and thunderstorms, as a result of convective processes, occur in winter where they never happened before — in Moscow or even further — in the Arctic.
— It's impossible to say for sure. I think that agriculture will most likely lose in Russia. This, as I have already said, will be affected by swamping in the north and, conversely, a decrease in moisture in the southern, grain-growing regions.
As long as the climate has not passed through the so-called critical points, we believe that warming is for us — good. But what will happen after, few people think.
— Such peaks of the system, passing through which the climate changes significantly, almost irrevocably. We consider the critical points to be a significant slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the destruction of the Amazon forests, the thawing of permafrost, the appearance of tornadoes in central Russia.
In addition to everything, we are also waiting for an accelerated restructuring of the animal and plant composition. Usually, in order to adapt to climate change, flora and fauna take dozens of generations. Against the backdrop of a faster climate change, they may simply die.
— At one time, a geoengineering idea was discussed — to compensate for the anthropogenic factor with another anthropogenic factor, namely, the dispersion of aerosols in the atmosphere that reduce solar radiation. I didn’t like it from the very beginning: experiments with the only planet we can live on could lead to undesirable consequences. Firstly, dry years could occur due to the decrease in the amount of solar energy, and this would reduce the productivity of vegetation. An aerosol-like effect has already occurred on Earth after volcanic eruptions.
Secondly, if the entire technological system suddenly failed, then warming would quickly return to its original trajectory (after all, greenhouse gases would not disappear anywhere). And then certainly no one could have predicted how all this could turn out.
Another idea is being discussed now: «Let's extract CO2 from the air and bury it!». I hope it doesn't come to that.
– Arranging a filter to extract carbon dioxide is probably not difficult. But what to do with this gas then? Turn everything into dry ice? This requires huge cooling plants, which, in turn, will again absorb and emit a lot of thermal energy. There is an option with low-emission energy sources — wind, solar power plants.
— I agree, — when creating the same windmills, solar panels and recycling old ones, energy is spent and toxic substances are released, which are even worse than CO2. The transition to electric cars seems like a good thing, but if we remember that they need lithium-ion batteries, we again come to a dead end. The fact is that the reserves of the rare earth element — lithium are limited, it is mined in the poorest countries of Africa, and the conditions there are such that young people (and child labor is often used) do not live up to 40 years.
– Yes, in my opinion, nuclear power plants are the only optimal solution so far. Well, there is also gas, which, when burned, emits 6 times less CO2 per unit of energy than coal and fuel oil.
– When I went to Germany, I had discussions on this subject with my German colleagues. They stood for the cessation of air travel, referring to the fact that planes burn a lot of fuel. I reminded them that there are countries, such as Russia, where the distances between cities can exceed a thousand kilometers, as well as the distance between Australia and New Zealand. And then the entire world civilian fleet, including cargo and medical, takes only 3% of all world emissions. Most — 30% percent — lies with the industry. So should we lose convenient air transport because of a 3% contribution until the problem with industrial emissions is solved?
— This is certainly an extreme. If we raise the question: to save the planet at any cost, then, indeed, we can kill all of humanity in this way. We cannot take and ban the birth rate. In China, this has already happened — due to overcrowding, they reduced the birth rate to one child per family. And what did it lead to? First, they have an age imbalance — few people work for the increased number of pensioners. Secondly, there was a gender imbalance, when more boys were born than girls. All this caused tension in society. And, as we see now, the PRC government has abandoned birth control.
— It will not stop right away, this system has a very large inertia. Its “braking path” is 30 or 50 years. The growth of global warming will slow down, but it will still be noticeable. By the way, the current warming is not in equilibrium with the current anthropogenic impact on the climate — the «working out» of this impact by the climate is still ahead of us.