What is the wrong Alexander Gorodnitsky

It is quite easy to comment on the articles of Alexander Gorodnitsky on climate - errors lie on the surface. In principle, Gorodnitsky’s climatic exercises could also be ignored due to their scientific failure, but the trouble is Alexander Moiseevich still a doctor of science (albeit not in climatology, but in another natural science specialty) and even a well -known bard, to whose words people listen.

So, let's start with obvious mistakes in the articles (or rather, the article, because the second article almost completely repeats the first) Dr. Goronitsky.

What struck me the most personally was amazing chronological and logical inconsistencies that are striking to any reader, but which do not confuse the author himself. For example, A. G. writes: “ The myth of global warming, formulated for the first time by the American politician Albert Mountain several decades ago and led to agreements in Kyoto in 1997 ” - and several paragraphs below explains that the book “Inconvenient truth” was given to the myth, published in 2007! Apparently, the inconvenient truth is that the authors of the Kyoto Protocol, owning time technologies in time, darted from the mid-1990s in 2007 to read the book of the mountain ...

Another example: “ Until the beginning of the 21st century, no scientific theory of greenhouse effect and the influence of greenhouse gases on thermal regimes of the atmosphere existed at all ,” and literally a paragraph earlier: “ The idea of ​​warming up the earthly atmosphere was first expressed at the end of the 19th century by the famous Swedish scientist Svante Arrenius (1859–1927) .” We are talking about an article by Arrenius, which he published in April 1896 and in which one of the first theories of a greenhouse effect was presented [1].

Atmospheric greenhouse effect on the fingers

If the Earth’s atmosphere was transparent to all wavelengths, then the balance between the absorption of sunlight and the thermal radiation of the Earth would occur at an average temperature of -15 ° C - everything would have frozen. In fact, this value depends on latitude, but for orientation, the assessment is suitable. We know for sure that the earth is much warm. The reason is the greenhouse effect. Immediately, we note that the process in the atmosphere does not happen exactly as in greenhouses, but the name was fixed tightly.

To begin with, suppose there are no clouds - this case is easier. Then sunlight unhindered reaches the surface and heats it. The surface radiates on other wavelengths - mostly more than 5 microns. But in this range, the atmosphere has wide spectral intervals of low transparency due to greenhouse gases. This is primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide.

But you can’t get anywhere from the equilibrium temperature: the Earth is obliged to radiate all the energy that it received from the Sun (we neglect the heating of the ocean and the Earth’s own warmth). Radiation for her is the only way to cool. And it can do this only at an effective temperature close to equilibrium. So this happens: the Earth radiates at an effective temperature of –15 ° C (the term “effective” includes the correct averaging in latitude and spectrum), but not from the surface, but from the high layers of the troposphere, where the temperature is just such an order. This is the height where infrared photons freely fly into space. And on the surface, the temperature at the same time is much higher, we know this well, and it is clear why this is so. The temperature dependence of the air on the height, as a rule, is determined by the adiabatic law. If there is a vertical convection, then the air, rising, cools, and dropping, heats up, and the temperature curve with a height corresponds to the adiabate. This is a typical case.

The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases, the higher the photons should be radiated so that they can fly into space, which means that the higher the layer with an effective temperature of –15 ° C. And the temperature ratio for different heights remains the same. This means that at the surface it will warm with an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Exilely, the greenhouse effect is explained by the transfer of photons, in fact, their diffusion, where instead of scattering, absorption and radiation occurs. Since the source of thermal photons is the surface of the Earth (it is it that translates one photon of light into several infrared photons), then the concentration of ik photones, and therefore the temperature should decrease from the bottom up. At the same time, if there is no convection, then the temperature difference is even greater, and the earth would be heated much stronger. But this is an unstable option - convection will certainly begin and smooth the temperature difference until the adiabate corresponds.

The cloudiness changes the picture, it becomes more complicated, the equilibrium temperature falls a little, but the greenhouse effect as a whole continues to work, sometimes even stronger - an extreme example of such a situation is Venus. This is the explanation, of course, contains strong simplifications (in particular, the main computational problems “sit” in the consideration of the spectrum, the transfer of photons has to be considered numerically), but in general it grabs the main effects. From the foregoing, in particular, it is clear that atmospheric convection does not cancel the greenhouse effect, as a common misconception says, but forms it.

There are several funny blunders that catch the eye of a person, at least a little familiar with physics. For example, in the first article, he confuses the partial pressure of the gases (which is measured in hectopascal) and a mound concentration (in PPMV, or in volumetric parts per million). True, in the second article there is no longer this mistake. In another place, he confuses the axis of the rotation of the Earth relative to the plane of the ecliptic (the plane that the Earth forms, rotating around the Sun) with the precession, calling it the "angle of the precession." Well, personally, my favorite blunder is this one: “ CO2 molecules are able to heat up due to the absorption of infrared radiation ,” molecules cannot “heat up”, since the “molecule temperature” does not have a physical meaning.

Already these flaws would have to alert the attentive reader and force him to ask himself the question: “What nonsense am I reading?!” Now a few less obvious mistakes, which only a reader with special knowledge can notice.

“ ... According to academician V. M. Kotlyakov and our observations behind the snow cover of the pole of the relative inaccessibility of Antarctica, the mass of the ice and snow of this continent has increased significantly over the past 30–40 years ” - this statement is not true (and no one leads any observations of snow cover at the pole of unavailability, perhaps A. G. confuses it with the Vostok station). In the article of 2017, Vladimir Mikhailovich Kotlyakov writes: “ ... In the modern era of global warming, the mass of ice in Antarctica apparently decreases ” [ 2 ]. According to the change in the masses of the glacial shields of Antarctica and Greenland, many scientific articles have been published in recent years, including several sightseeing. A change in the mass of polar glaciers is studied in three independent methods: a mass-balanced method, satellite altimetry (accurate measurement of the surface of the glacier) and a change in gravity. These methods give the same result: since the 1990s, Antarctica has lost weight; Basically, these losses are localized in Western Antarctica and on the Antarctic Peninsula; In East Antarctica there are zones where the mass arrives and where it decreases, in general, its balance of mass is statistically indistinguishable from zero [ 3 ]. From 1992 to 2017, Antarctica lost about three trillion (three million million) tons of ice. The same thing happens in Greenland, only it loses the mass along the entire periphery of the ice shield.

The fact that the Earth’s glaciers are melting is consistent with independent data on the growth of the level of the oceans. Now the sea level is growing by about 3.5 mm/year, but the growth rate is constantly increasing. In the 20th century, the growth of sea level is half explained by the thermal expansion of water (when heated, its volume increases!) And the melting of mountain glaciers, and in the 21st century the main contribution will be given by melting polar shields of Greenland and Antarctica.

Where did Gorodnitsky get the thesis about the growth of the mass of Antarctica? Honestly, I don't know. Perhaps he confuses the balance of the mass of the glacier and the speed of snow accumulation in the battery area. Indeed, there is evidence that the speed of snow accumulation (the amount of snow, which annually falls out of the atmosphere and is deposited on the surface in the form of snow cover) in the central Antarctica has increased a little over the past 200 years [ 4 ]. But this is only the receipt of the balance of the mass! The consumption part of the balance of the mass (the flow of ice from the mainland to the ocean, the iceberry’s offset and melting of ice shelf) also grew, and stronger than the parish part.

The role of water in the greenhouse effect

Water at its average concentration in the atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation more strongly than carbon dioxide. Why is everyone concerned all the increase in CO2 concentration? The fact is that water vapor can appear very quickly and disappear, and the concentration of CO2 is stable - carbon dioxide can only slowly accumulate or slowly absorb, it cannot condensate quickly. Thus, carbon dioxide is the leading factor, and the water vapor is the driven, its concentration depends on the concentration of CO2 through the temperature - the stronger the greenhouse heating from carbon dioxide, the more water in the atmosphere is a positive feedback that enhances the greenhouse effect.

On the other hand, water vapor smoothes adiabata, which determines the high-altitude dependence of the temperature: “wet” adiabata is more “dry” due to the fact that water vapor condenses in the ascending stream and heat is released. In this sense, the water steam softens the greenhouse effect, which itself enhances.

Thus, water vapor as a whole gives a strong effect, but rather in the order of feedback (both positive and negative), and not as an independent factor.

“ There is not a single reliable evidence of the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate of the Earth .” There are hundreds of such evidence! And many of them were known long before the publication of the Book of Gora and the Kyoto Protocol. The greenhouse effect, along with a change in solar insolation (arriving energy of the Sun) and geological factors, throughout the 20th century was considered by climatologists as the main factor affecting the climate of the planet. There are a great many examples. The cooling of the coal period is associated with the rapid development of vegetation, which has seized a lot of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The optimum of the eocene (one of the warmest eras in the history of the planet) 52 million years ago is explained by a very high concentration of CO2, which was then in the atmosphere about 500–1000 PPM. The subsequent gradual decrease in the amount of carbon dioxide led to the same gradual cooling, which eventually ended with the formation of polar (first in Antarctica, then in the northern hemisphere) and mountain glaciation. And the anthropogenic influence on the climate is not at all news. This was very active about this already in the 1960s. In 1972, the Russian climatologist Mikhail Ivanovich Budyko published the monograph “The influence of man on the climate” [5], where, using relatively simple models, he quite accurately predicted the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of the 20th century and an increase in air temperature. Its logic was simple: the population would grow exponentially (when it published a monograph, there were about 3.5 billion people on Earth now more than 7 billion, accordingly, energy production will grow, and therefore the consumption of fuel, which, in turn, will increase the content of CO2 in the atmosphere and cause an increase in air temperature. The greenhouse effect, 50 years ago, was not secreted for climatologists.

" ... at first the temperature changed, and only after it, after 500-600 years, the concentration of CO2 ." No, this is not so. The depreciation of paleoclimatic data across the planet suggests that when the last glaciation to the interglacials (20–10 thousand liters), the concentration of CO2 first increased, and after the lag for about 460 years the air temperature increased [6]. But does this mean that it was carbon dioxide that was the root cause of climatic fluctuations in the past? No, doesn’t mean. Everything was a little more complicated. The root cause is astronomical cycles (the so -called Milankovich cycles), during which the geometry of the orbit of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is slightly changed, and due to this, the number of energy coming from the luminary changes. There are several such cycles. Firstly, with a period of 40 thousand years, the slope of the axis of the rotation of the earth to the ecliptic plane is slightly changed. The larger the axis inclination (the stronger the planet “lit on the side”), the more energy the northern hemisphere receives in the summer and the less in winter (and vice versa in the southern hemisphere). The next period - 26 thousand years - is associated with the so -called "precession of the equinox." What is it? Since the orbit of the Earth is not perfectly round, our planet is slightly closer, then a little further from the sun, and the closest to the luminary (at the point of perihelia) we are in January, and then (in Afelia) - in July. So, due to the precession of the date of passage of perihelia and Afelia, they shift a little all the time. 13 thousand years ago, the Earth took place of the perihelium point in July, respectively, in the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, due to this factor, the energy came a little more, and in the winter a little less (and vice versa in the southern hemisphere). Finally, there are also cycles (the main of which is about 90 thousand years), associated with the eccentricity of the orbit, that is, with the elongation of the ellipse, according to which the earth rotates around the sun. The more round her orbit she has, the less the influence of the precession.

Thus, during the cycles of Milankovich, the northern hemisphere (namely, it is the leader, when it comes to climatic changes on the planet), it receives a little more or a little less solar energy. But these fluctuations of energy are not enough to explain the amplitude of temperature changes on the planet in the past, some other factors are needed. A change in solar insolation serves as an impetus that triggers a cascade of other processes. A slight increase in the perch solar energy 20 thousand years ago in the northern hemisphere in the summer led to a slight reduction in mainland glazing, weakening the meridional circulation of water in the Atlantic, a change in the carbon cycle of the planet and, as a result, an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And already in response to the strengthening of the greenhouse effect, a sharp warming and irreversible decay of the glacial shields of Eurasia and North America began. This process was also facilitated by other factors, for example, reducing the area of ​​glaciers reduces the albedo (reflective ability) of the planet. The lower the albedo, the more dark the surface looks - the more energy it gets from the sun - the higher the temperature - the stronger the melting of the glaciers, etc.

Currently, the mechanism of climatic changes is different, but more on that below.

“ ... About 7-10 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or 1.9–2.7 billion tons of pure carbon enters the atmosphere .” In the first article Gorodnitsky, the many numbers were given, but these, corrected, are very underestimated. Currently, due to the burning of fossil organics, a person annually throws 9.9 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere (or about 40 billion tons of CO2), another 1.4 billion tons gives land use. Of these, 2.5 billion tons are dissolved in the ocean (increasing its acidity), and 3.8 billion tons are consumed by ground vegetation. The remainder - about 5 billion tons per year - accumulates in the atmosphere [ 7 ].

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has now reached 405 PPM - this is much more than in the previous million years, when it has changed from 180 PPM (in cold epochs) to 280 PPM (in warm).

“ In contrast to the primitive hypothesis of the climate dependence, only one reason is concentrated in an atmosphere of greenhouse gases ... ” This phrase gives Alexander Moiseevich with his head: it has no idea what methods modern climatology operates. Climate models take into account the coming solar activity, and volcanic activity, and the interaction of the atmosphere with the ocean and land, and the albedo of the surface, and many other factors, including, of course, greenhouse gases. If you turn off the influence of greenhouse gases, none of the remaining factors, including solar activity, about which Gorodnitsky writes so much, not all of them are able to explain the climate changes observed since the 1970s.

What is the difference between modern warming from past eras, when the temperature on Earth increased, and there was clearly no influence of man? Let's figure it out.

The reasons for warming at the end of the past glacial era of 20-10 thousand years ago we already briefly examined. Like modern warming, it was global, that is, to one degree or another, it covered all areas of the planet. His root cause was a smooth and slow increase in solar insolation in the summer in the Northern Hemisphere as part of the Milankovich cycle, which served as a trigger, which included the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. Скорость изменений была достаточно низкой: за 10 тыс. лет температура планеты выросла на 3,5 ºС (в тропиках меньше, в полярных районах больше), т. е. на 0,035 ºС/100 лет. В современную же эпоху скорость потепления порядка 1 ºС/100 лет, а если взять период с 1970 года, то и того больше — 1,5 ºС/100 лет! Только представьте, скорость изменений сейчас в 40 раз выше, чем при таком масштабном глобальном событии, как окончание ледникового периода… Как указано выше, никакими природными факторами этот процесс объяснить невозможно. Солнечная активность с 1960-х годов несколько снизилась (а не росла, как пишет Городницкий), немного компенсируя влияние парникового эффекта. Что до циклов Миланковича, то в масштабе сотни лет их влияние слишком мало, чтобы оказать заметное влияние на климат.

Ну а как насчет климатических аномалий исторического периода, на которые ссылается А. Г., — средневекового потепления (800–1200 годы н. э.) и похолодания Малой Ледниковой Эпохи (1300–1850 годы н. э.)? Самое главное, что о них нужно знать: они не были глобальными. Потепление в одном регионе могло сопровождаться отсутствием температурной аномалии (или даже похолоданием) в другом регионе, поэтому при глобальном осреднении климатическая кривая Земли за последние несколько тысяч лет выглядит довольно гладкой и лишь в конце XX века задирается вверх [ 8 ]. Концентрация CO2 в те эпохи менялась несильно, и наблюдаемые региональные аномалии объясняются солнечной и вулканической активностью.

Иными словами, чисто природные причины климатических изменений в далеком прошлом не исключают, что сейчас основная причина изменений — антропогенная. И с другой стороны, тот факт, что сейчас за климатические изменения ответственность несёт человек, не означают, что в древние эпохи, когда деятельность человечества была куда менее активной, чем сейчас, не могло быть естественных изменений климата. Но — повторим — нынешние антропогенные климатические изменения абсолютно беспрецедентны за последние тысячи лет как по скорости событий, так и по их глобальному охвату.

Ждет ли нас в будущем похолодание? It is unlikely. Основной фактор — парниковый эффект — будет действовать еще много десятков лет, даже если мы начнем снижать выбросы прямо завтра. В более отдаленную эпоху нас мог бы ждать очередной ледниковый период, поскольку мы, действительно, находимся на нисходящей фазе цикла Миланковича. Но увы, при концентрации CO2 в атмосфере больше 400 ppm эти циклы практически перестают действовать, и следующая ледниковая эпоха нам не грозит…

И в завершении еще одна фраза из Городницкого, которая не является полностью неверной, но на ней тем не менее тоже хочется остановиться:

« Увеличение концентрации этого газа в земной атмосфере, безусловно, является полезным фактором, существенно повышающим продуктивность сельского хозяйства ».

Действительно, при увеличении парциального давления CO2 продуктивность растений увеличивается — правда, не бесконечно (есть оптимальная концентрация, после которой продуктивность будет снижаться), и у всех по-разному. Да и вообще понятно, что одних минусов не бывает, всегда найдутся и плюсы. Но здесь мы вступаем на скользкий путь сложных финансовых подсчетов прибылей и убытков. В том же сельском хозяйстве эффект от увеличения продуктивности может быть сведен на нет убытками от увеличения частоты экстремальных погодных условий, от болезней и паразитов. Что лучше — рост в сельском хозяйстве или убытки при разрушении сооружений в зоне многолетней мерзлоты? При сокращении морского льда в Арктике что лучше — выгоды для судоходства (и это лишь при условии, что Россия обзаведется соответствующей инфраструктурой) или ущерб для местных экосистем и коренных народов?

Так или иначе, с очень большой вероятностью к концу XXI века ущерб от климатических изменений существенно превысит возможную прибыль…

А есть ведь еще и этические вопросы! Сможем ли мы наслаждаться гипотетическим подъёмом сельского хозяйства на Северо-Западе России, зная, что во многих регионах Африки и Азии от засухи и голода гибнут люди? что целые страны Океании будут вынуждены искать себе новую территорию для проживания? что по всему миру гибнут уникальные экосистемы? Оставляю эти вопросы открытыми — ответьте на них для себя сами.

А закончить эту заметку можно фразой из самого Городницкого: «… проблемами изменений климата должны заниматься профессиональные ученые, а не дилетанты и политики ». Вот с этим я абсолютно согласен!

Алексей Екайкин,
гляциолог, полярник, вед. scientific. sore. Лаборатории изменений климата и окружающей среды
Арктического и антарктического научно-исследовательского института (ААНИИ)