- It is widely believed that human activity has led to serious climate change on the planet. How scientifically justified is it ?

- The first studies on the relationship of the greenhouse effect and temperature on the planet were carried out by scientists in 1930-1950. In the 1970s and 1980s, an understanding was finally formed that burning fossil fuels enhances the greenhouse effect.

If in the 1990s, scientists were confident that warming was associated with burning fossil fuels, it was about 90%, now climatologists are 99.9% sure of that.

In general, various factors can influence the global climate: changes in solar and volcanic activity, global restructuring of ecosystems, parameters of the Earth’s orbit, and the fall of large meteorites finally. For example, the small ice age, which caused a cooling on the Earth in the XIV-XIX centuries, was associated with increased volcanic activity and low luminosity of the Sun. Now volcanic activity is rather weak, the change in solar activity from cycle to cycle is also insignificant, changes in orbit parameters for such a short time are practically zero.

  • Climate models demonstrate that modern warming can only be explained by burning fossil fuels
  • globallookpress.com
  • © FB-Rose

- And where did the term "greenhouse effect" appear ?

- At the beginning of the XIX century, Joseph Fourier suggested the existence of the greenhouse effect. He calculated the equilibrium temperature that a planet receiving energy from the Sun should have, and found out that the temperature of the Earth is higher than it should be. Fourier suggested that there are certain gases in the atmosphere that additionally emit long-wave radiation. The term “greenhouse effect” appeared at the beginning of the 20th century, but the comparison with the greenhouse is not entirely correct, because convection is “locked” in the greenhouse. Whereas in the Earth’s atmosphere, long-wave radiation is “blocked”.

In the mid-19th century, John Tyndall experimentally proved that water vapor and carbon dioxide are the main greenhouse gases. Later, the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate that if CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere, this will lead to warming. As a resident of the server country, this hypothetical opportunity only pleased him.

- What is the most important evidence of human exposure to climate ?

- The evidence that formed the basis for understanding that a person really affects the climate appeared in the middle of the 20th century. In the late 1950s, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii opened, where they began to monitor the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists saw how fast it is growing. Observations began when the level reached 315 parts per million, today this figure reaches 415.

In the 1990s, work appeared on the study of glacial cores of Antarctica - roughly speaking, columns of ice extracted from the glacier. The ice contains air bubbles, and by its chemical composition one can find out the composition of the atmosphere in the past. It was found that the concentration has never risen above 280 parts per million over the past 800 thousand years; it has always fluctuated around 180-280.

At the same time, cycles of glaciation of the planet associated with changes in the parameters of the Earth’s orbit were studied, which is also an important factor affecting the climate (the so-called Milankovitch cycles). Then there was an understanding that the level of CO2 is growing rapidly. In addition, in the mid-twentieth century, an isotope analysis of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was carried out and it was found that its composition increased the number of light carbon isotopes that are released from the combustion of coal and oil. In addition, various mathematical climate models demonstrate that modern warming can only be explained by burning fossil fuels.

- How much do we affect the climate?

- Warming is the result of human activity. If it were not, then the average temperature on the planet would be a degree lower.

- For the first time, politicians started talking seriously about global warming after the publication of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at the UN, which indicated the increase in temperature on Earth through the fault of mankind. At the same time, opponents of the theory of global warming call the conclusions of experts “pseudoscientific deception " and they believe that the topic of global warming is overheated for political purposes ... However, climate issues are now one of the most pressing in the world. This topic became the main one at the jubilee 50th summit in Davos.

- After the 1970s, a shaft of scientific work and articles on climate change began. The first IPCC report appeared in 1990 to accumulate all the knowledge gained at that time on this issue. IPCC is an international panel of experts on climate change, established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations. IPCC consists of only 25-30 people, but thousands of scientists (authors, reviewers) are involved in writing evaluation reports. IPCC prepares resumes for politicians, gives out a politically neutral cut of modern knowledge. Their conclusions about the human impact on climate are unambiguous.

Further, politicians, on the basis of such reports, decide on their own what to do: adapt or mitigate the effects of climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and the Davos Summit are attempts to come to an agreement with the whole world.

- Recently, it seems that climate change has already led to insoluble problems that are only intensifying : destructive hurricanes rage regularly in America, Europe periodically floods, forests burn in Australia. Is this really the case, or have we just become more informed thanks to the proliferation of mass media, and have there always been similar problems on the planet?

- Here you need to consider three processes at once. First - we have become more informed, this is a fact. The second process - humanity has become more vulnerable, as people began to settle in the floodplains of the rivers, on the shores of the oceans. The third process is an increase in the number of dangerous climatic phenomena.

Such fires as in Australia, for example, have not occurred in the entire history of meteorological observations. Severe drought and record heat led to such consequences.

  • Severe drought and record heat led to fires in Australia, which were not in the history of meteorological observations
  • Reuters
  • © Maxar Technologies

Of course, humanity is adapting to the ongoing changes. There is a problem with the flooding of tropical islands, "low" countries. The question remains open whether they will be able to adapt and build, for example, tall shafts, or whether their adaptation will be that they will agree with some country on the purchase of territories and, accordingly, move there. In any case, climate migration is inevitable.

- Recently, it was reported that at the beginning of 2020 in Russia there will be a state standard for adaptation to climate change. On January 4, the first stage of the national plan for adaptation to climate change until 2022 was approved. What are we preparing for? Perhaps you need to rejoice in the softening of the climate in Russia, where winter is usually almost half a year?

- In fact, scientists know what is happening now. We influence the climate, strengthened the greenhouse effect, and then we are expected to continue warming with small pauses, the last such pause of global warming was 5-15 years ago.

For each region, there are specific estimates of temperature changes. It should be understood that carbon dioxide emissions depend on the structure of energy consumption, industry around the world. We are tied to models of economists who give out several scenarios for the development of the future. Depending on these scenarios, for each region a certain ensemble of temperature distribution, the probability of heavy rainfall, high floods, etc. is given, and then again it is up to economists and politicians to calculate all the pros and cons: how much money to spend on adaptation, mitigation, changing policies in regarding climate to rebuild and prepare the economy.

Our country should consider both the pros and cons. It is necessary to adapt to the pluses, understanding, for example, that there will be more favorable conditions for agriculture in certain regions. There are pros and cons, but diverse and from different areas. It is necessary to develop a methodology for comparing all the pros and cons. Conditionally: how to compare the pros from the passage of container ships without icebreaking escort along the Northern Sea Route and the disadvantages from the destruction of infrastructure due to the melting of permafrost? There are many such examples. So far, I have not seen work comparing such various consequences.

There are two ways to respond to warming, and a balance is needed between them. On the one hand, this is adaptation, which is essentially a response to climate change, and on the other, measures to mitigate our climate impact, for example, the transition of the global economy to renewable energy sources, to low-carbon development.