Expert of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Chernokulsky talks about weather surprises, future scenarios and why the topic of global warming is somewhat “overheated”
The topic of climate change became the main topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos at the beginning of 2020 and will remain a trend for a long time to come. But the debate around global warming is becoming more and more heated: whether it will happen or not. Supporters of both ideas accuse each other of incompetence and hysteria – while the voices of journalists and public figures are often more audible than the voices of scientists. What really awaits us and whether this risk can be avoided, we asked the climatologist Alexander Chernokulsky to tell.
Alexander Chernokulsky is a senior researcher at the Laboratory of Climate Theory, Institute of Atmospheric Physics. A. M. Obukhova RAS, secretary of the dissertation council of IFA. Member of the Bureau of the Council of Young Scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Graduated from the Faculty of Geography of Moscow State University with a degree in hydrometeorology. Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. Author of more than four dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals and 14 books (co-authored) on climate change and sustainable development issues. Winner of the Russian Academy of Sciences Prize for Young Scientists, winner of the Moscow Government Prize for Young Scientists. Organizer of several scientific conferences on climate change. In the past, he was the editor-in-chief of the round-the-clock television channel First Meteo.
Audio version of the material:
– Will the topic of global warming suffer the fate of the ozone hole: the whole world was convinced of a great danger, they sold “ozone-friendly” refrigerants, and now everyone has forgotten about the hole?
“No one has forgotten about the ozone layer, now scientists write a lot about the fact that it is being restored precisely thanks to the timely adoption of the Montreal Protocol. And do not confuse disputes on the Internet with the work of scientists. The biggest companies don’t listen to popular journalists, they listen to scientists, and everyone is saying the same thing about global warming. There are discrepancies in the forecasts, there are many models, but in general the conclusion is the same. And companies understand the danger this brings to the state and business.
– Maybe companies join the “green” theme simply because they want to look innovative and good in the eyes of consumers?
“You don’t have to look “good” or “smart.” In Europe, the buyer chose the product in favor of climate friendly (climate-friendly. -). Now they are introducing a tax on carbon emissions – this is already a net cost for those who do not adhere to the “green” approach. Carbon dioxide takes a long time to leave the atmosphere. Methane – for 12 years, carbon dioxide has a lifetime of one molecule of three to five years, but the concentration relaxation time is very long – in 30 years the excess carbon is removed only by half, and the rest takes hundreds and thousands of years.
Now the conflict of generations is tied to environmental issues
— But still, you must admit, some element of hype is also present here, and it also influences decision-making. Once you even joked, saying that the topic of global warming is somewhat “overheated”…
Are you talking about Greta Thunberg? There is always a conflict of generations, now it is tied to eco-themes. The nuance is that the opinion of scientists coincides with the point of view of young people: measures to keep warming within two degrees, recognized as relatively safe, are not enough. It is clear that there is a discussion: what is more important – to improve air quality or to eliminate poverty? But we will spend far less on climate action now than we will have to spend 50 years from now. We may even be able to invest in removing carbon from the atmosphere and safely burn oil again, solving other problems.
– However, there is another side: the journalist Yulia Latynina, in a sensational article about the “Mann stick”, actually called you and your like-minded people charlatans and extortionists.
– Yes, there would be no article about the “stick” if it were not for Greta. And her image is still ambiguous. From the point of view of the popularization of science, she did a lot. But now some climate scientists fear they will be associated with the young Swedish woman. There is an important point that should be noted: the transition to “green” energy is proposed not by climatologists, but by economists. We, climatologists, show what will happen to the climate, give different options. But what will happen to the economy and how many lives we will lose when choosing this or that option – this is a question for other sciences.
“Recently, Bloomberg published a frightening article: they say that models that predicted warming by three degrees this century suddenly changed their readings with the latest data and now they promise warming by five degrees at once.
– About five degrees, I would be more careful, it’s a lot. But even three degrees is still a reason to reduce emissions and look for ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere. So far, the methods available to us have a very low capacity, but this is the future. There are proposals to store carbon dioxide in underground wells. Or actively plant a forest, grow it for 20-30 years while it absorbs carbon, and then put it into processing. However, it is not yet clear how sustainable this will be and whether carbon will eventually return back to the atmosphere.
– If mathematical models are already drawing such an apocalyptic scenario anyway, maybe it’s better not to try to stop the process, but to spend resources on preparing for the inevitable?
— The question is how much to spend on adaptation and how much to mitigate the effect. Warming by two or five degrees gives different prices for adaptation, and this is a matter of balance, it is not for us, it is for economists. I’ve seen economic estimates – now it’s cheaper to combine both approaches.
Sitting and waiting by the sea for the weather – it won’t work that way
– The topic of global warming did not arise today – as you yourself have noted more than once, Fourier was the first to pay attention to it. Is there any progress in science, say, in the last ten years?
Nothing has changed radically over the years. In 2011, they directly measured how much radiation changes in the spectral channels of carbon dioxide. Also during this time, scientists have become less likely to operate with the concept of global temperature and switched to the accumulation of heat in the system. Right now, about one watt per square meter is stored in the ocean. The ocean buries heat and will give it away for a long time. And this is clearer to both physicists and ordinary people. Over these ten years, the rate of rise of the World Ocean has increased – from 2 to 3,5 mm per year. The contribution of melting glaciers has increased: earlier, the level of the ocean rose by two-thirds due to temperature expansion, now the effect of melting ice is approximately equal to it. And mountain glaciers, by the way, are a source of drinking water for many countries.
— But to us, in our country, what does it matter? We have a lot of space, a lot of water, the ocean will not flood us much. Let them figure it out for themselves, cope without us, but we have more important tasks. Moreover, according to some calculations, the consequences of global warming will be mostly favorable for our country.
“In that case, we would be political pariahs.
– We’re not used to it.
– In fact, theoretically, pluses are possible. The problem is that I have not seen any one good summary map or article that covers all aspects. How many premature deaths from frost will not be exactly? And how many premature deaths from the heat will we get in exchange for this? How much will we lose from changing the nature of precipitation? How much will the Northern Sea Route get rid of the ice and how much will we lose due to the melting of permafrost? In sum, the picture will be ambiguous, and in order to get pluses, you need to adapt not only to the minuses, but also to these pluses themselves. Just sitting and waiting by the sea for the weather will not work. Without coastal infrastructure, the Northern Sea Route will not work: what if the coast is made of melting permafrost, plus increased waves and wind surge, under which the coast recedes? Where to build a port? Warming in agriculture affects our choice of crops, forces us to breed new species, for example, drought-resistant ones, and change logistics. Encephalitic mites do not freeze, and even anthrax will take and thaw. Here is such an important point: the cons can be non-obvious and very strong. Unexpected gifts are unlikely, but trouble is quite.
— And how did it happen? For a good half century, if not more, it has been said about the protection of nature. All counters in shops in these green stickers. And all the same, in the end, our glaciers are melting, the islands go under water – in general, it’s time to prepare for the apocalypse. What have green companies been doing all this time?
“The stickers themselves are produced somewhere, which means that, by the very fact of their existence, they harm the environment. In fact, not every environmentally friendly product also helps to fight global warming. Converting energy to hydroelectric power plants is very beneficial from a climate point of view. But for hydroelectric power stations it is necessary to create reservoirs, and environmentalists do not like this at all. Batteries are good for the climate, but there are questions about them from an environmental point of view. If you want to eat “climate friendly” food, you don’t need to buy specific foods – just eat less meat and more vegetables. These are two different threats: garbage and plastic are clean ecology, and they relate to the climate only in so far as, for example, in terms of landfill methane. Of course, in combination, these problems are usually easier to solve. But this does not always happen.
What is the real threat of global warming?
– For all mankind, one of the main risks is the rise of the ocean level. This is not only an increase in the average level. This is an increase in storm activity, which means an increase in surge. It already leads to flooding, for example, in 2018 in Spain, hotels literally sank on the Mediterranean coast. And one more thing: rising coastal saline levels make coastal farming more risky. This is a reformatting of the tourism sector. In the Mediterranean basin, there are too many storms in autumn, and in summer it is now too hot there, under 40 degrees. In the mountains, sometimes there is not enough snow, then a record amount falls. When this happens once, it is a small thing, an incident. When this happens all the time, it becomes a problem, it changes the way of life. For example, according to forecasts, by 2050, two-thirds of the cities that hosted the Winter Olympics will not be able to do it again – it will simply be too warm there.
How much has sea level risen since 1900 (in cm).
The probability of unpleasant surprises increases quadratically
“Wait, but in the end, people may stop liking living where they used to live.”…
Yes, this is not always talked about – climate refugees. It seems strange: usually people run from the war, not from the weather. But a severe drought causes crop failure, followed by famine, which causes unrest – and here you have a wave of migration. The drought in the Middle East has been cited as one of the causes of the war in Syria, which has exacerbated the European migration crisis. And a question for politicians: to close borders in the future or, on the contrary, to create conditions for attracting people? Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee recently recognized the right of climate refugees to asylum, that is, they cannot be simply expelled from the country.
– Good. We have a lot of space, the loss of rice plantations is not fatal for us, we have already hosted the Winter Olympics and, if anything, we will find a place for one more. We’re all right?
— Since the 1990s, according to Roshydromet, the number of dangerous weather events has doubled. Speaking in absolute terms, it has increased by several hundred. I think some of this growth is instrumental, but some of it is real. For example, we found out that tornadoes are not a purely American phenomenon. The risk of tornadoes is increasing, and this is a dangerous phenomenon, some tornadoes have a path 80 km long and 2 km wide. It will pass through the forest – it’s okay, well, except perhaps a loss to the forest fund. But this is just a probabilistic coincidence – there are a lot of forests in our country. And if such a tornado passes through a populated area, there may be casualties and great damage. Tornadoes are just an example. There are still showers, hail, squalls. In general, we need to improve the forecast of such events and improve the system of warnings.
What about warnings? Everyone receives SMS from the Ministry of Emergency Situations.
– The way the warnings look is not quite correct – they are too general: “Gusts of wind are expected in the area.” Meteorologists see where exactly the wind will be, not “places”. In America and Europe, more and more accurately give the place and time. This requires additional computing power. Moreover, they are there, but they are too expensive to use, which is why they are often idle. And someone needs to work for them, and for a decent salary. So Roshydromet is trying to somehow use its data for commercial purposes in order to retain specialists.
– That is, we will then tell our grandchildren about life without hurricanes?
– We will not leave them, we will just be warned: in such and such a place at such and such time there will be a wind of such and such force. This affects another area – insurance. And here the forecast from the season to ten years is important. And in climatology now it is a big scientific task to improve the quality of such a forecast. The limit of weather predictability in the usual sense is 10–14 days, and then it’s like “with a 70% probability, July will be two degrees warmer than usual.” Seasonal forecast is important, and not only for agriculture. For example, for the clothing trade, how many companies suffered in Moscow this winter? For the same Gazprom, an error of one degree per season is already a serious problem.
– Against the backdrop of the scale of the phenomena you are talking about, attempts to collect carbon by planting forests seem like something of a child’s game. Does humanity have something more serious to surely fight off warming?
– One of the options is geoengineering, directed impact. For example, imitation of a volcano explosion. It is known that during large volcanic eruptions on Earth there have already been cooling spells – this is just what we need. Scientists propose to send a sulfate aerosol into the atmosphere, which will reflect some of the light into space. Or act on stratocumulus clouds in the eastern parts of the oceans – where cold currents and clouds constantly hang, just in the tropics, where the ocean strongly absorbs heat. From satellites, it can be seen that the clouds behind passing ships due to exhausts become whiter and better reflect light. And an idea appeared: to extract table salt from the ocean and with its help to thicken the clouds.
– The second option generally sounds very “environmentally friendly”.
“The problem is that sulfate aerosols harm the ozone layer. And when they are used, the precipitation field will change: where it is dry, it will become even drier, and where it is wet, even wetter. And even in a cloudy, “environmentally friendly” version, carbon dioxide will still remain in the atmosphere, the ocean will acidify. Its biodiversity will be significantly reduced, and fishing will decrease. That is, we will not eliminate the root cause – it is possible to save a melting glacier in a moment, but in the end it will be a cough pill, and not from the virus that caused it. In addition, different countries need to agree on such measures, and not all of them will directly benefit, that is, it is extremely difficult to implement. Finally, we should not forget about this aspect: despite the already fairly extensive knowledge and detailed mathematical models, we still have to constantly re-evaluate and refine them. And with such a radical intervention, the probability of unexpected – and therefore unpleasant – surprises increases quadratically. So all the arguments add up in favor of the fact that, while there is a chance, it is worth removing carbon from the atmosphere first of all.