What can we do to stop global warming. Fighting global warming with improvised means

10.10.2019

Tired of faking an orgasm with your husband and want to get long-awaited satisfaction and a fantastic orgasm? Generic female Viagra was created specifically to increase your excitability and sensuality in bed: now the pleasure of sex has ceased to be a pipe dream!

Women's Viagra contains the active ingredient - sildenafil citrate at a dosage of 100 mg, as well as additional substances in the form of a soluble shell, which contribute to the rapid onset of the effect.

The drug for women is available in the form of pink tablets in convenient blisters and is designed to increase sexual arousal and achieve orgasm during intercourse.

The active substance relaxes the smooth muscles of the intimate organs and improves blood circulation in the pelvic organs, which promotes blood flow to the vagina and clitoris - the main erogenous zones. As a result, a woman feels sexual arousal, the amount of vaginal lubrication increases, which contributes to comfortable penetration, and erogenous zones become more sensitive.

The female stimulator has the following indications for use:

The period of menopause.
Insufficient lubrication during sex.
Lack of sexual desire and orgasm, reduced intensity.
Lack of response to stimulation of erogenous zones.
Hormonal imbalance in the body after childbirth.

Our online pharmacy offers beautiful ladies a stimulant for long orgasms. Here you can look forward to the following:

Confidentiality, keeping secrets about your order.
Certified drugs with a safe composition.
Fast and inexpensive delivery across Russia in a convenient way for you.
Professional advice from specialists and assistance in choosing the right amount of tablets.
Affordable cost of stimulants.
Reviews of real clients.

Women's Viagra is the way to your pleasure and reproductive health, the way to turn sex into a really interesting and regular activity!

Purchase options:

Quantity	Unit price	Price	Bonuses	Buy

1. Buy in 1 click - you only need to provide a phone number and a convenient time for you. Then the operator will call you back and clarify all the data for placing an order.

2. Add to cart – classic way checkout, where you collect the basket, and then place the order yourself." data-original-title="(!LANG:Which way to order:" style="margin-bottom:10px"> !} Which way to order

Buy with this product:

Customer Reviews (8)

Based on 8 reviews

Write a review

Write a product review

I've never heard of women's Viagra, but a friend told me what's wrong with her intimate life much brighter. I made up my mind and ordered pills for myself and never once regretted a really cool thing. I loved it.

I tried to persuade myself to buy it for a couple of days, I ordered it myself, now I’ll persuade me to accept it for a couple of days) (Rostov-on-Don) August 09, 2016 (09:27)

This is the first time I hear about women's Viagra. Recently I heard a qualified opinion that, apart from a slight arousal, it has no benefit)) Girls who have actually tried it, share your impressions))

I have never heard of female Viagra either, but now I will definitely hurry to try it!!!

I really didn’t know that women’s Viagra was) Because I always thought that girls can, and even want, because they don’t need much work in this matter. Then you still understand that with age it’s not the same, so you resort to such methods! Thank you, my wife is very pleased, and so am I)

4.0 Alina (Volgograd) 12 Feb 2019 (22:22)

It is more difficult for a woman to reach the peak of pleasure when intimacy than a man. It's great that there is such a drug!

Epigraph: “Whatever they tell you - we are talking about money" (Todd's principle)

Forewarning: what does the planet Venus have to do with it, it will be clear closer to the finale.

The essence of the business idea: humanity burns hydrocarbon fossil fuels (coal, oil), and saturates the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it delays infrared (thermal) rays, preventing them from scattering into space. This leads to the fact that the climate of the planet Earth becomes warmer. If these greenhouse emissions are not reduced, the glaciers will melt, the world's oceans will rise, flooding part of the continents, unbearable heat will fall on the remaining land, in short: everyone will die.

Business Process: At the international level, a number of protocols are signed that limit CO2 emissions to certain quotas and reduction commitments. Those entities that have excess allowances can (WARNING!) sell these allowances to those entities that burn so much that they do not have enough CO2 allowances. And created international foundation funding the fight against CO2 on our planet. In particular (ATTENTION!) Allocating grants to scientists - for the relevant science.
(See Kyoto Protocol 1997 and Paris Protocol 2015).
In fact, this business process started in the 2000s.

Issue price: Al Gore (Vice President of the United States in 1993 - 2001, central figure in the fight against CO2, laureate Nobel Prize 2007 world for this fight) increased his personal fortune from $2 million to about $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2-quotas by 2010 reached 120 billion dollars, and continues to grow vigorously. This is what it really means to make money out of thin air!

What does science say? Those scientists who receive grants for the fight against CO2, of course, say that it is CO2 that causes the greenhouse effect, and this is a threat to humanity. Those scientists who do not count on these grants are talking about a pseudoscientific scam.

Andrey Kapitsa and Jonathan Moldavanov: “Global warming and ozone holes are scientific myths”:
"For many years ex-president The US Academy of Sciences Frederick Seitz (Seitz) drew attention to the fact that all theories of global warming and ozone holes are far-fetched and do not correspond to reality, that these are anti-scientific theories. 17,000 American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a real threat to humanity and a heavy blow to its future.
*Note: A.P. Kapitsa is referring to the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.

Alexander Gorodnitsky "The end of the myth of global warming":
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the reduction of emissions into the atmosphere of the so-called "greenhouse gases", and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases allegedly lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect and a significant warming of the Earth's climate.

Both of these materials, and a host of other materials on climate skepticism (the movement of scientists to refute the doctrine of greenhouse global warming) are available on the Internet, and you can read the detailed arguments.

And we will try to understand objectively the case of climate change and the man-made factor - greenhouse gases (in particular, carbon dioxide - CO2, around which the Kyoto Protocol machine revolves). Buddhas don't burn pots - we can do it.

Let's start with simple question: Is there a greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere, and what gases cause it?
Answer: The greenhouse effect exists. It is associated with the property of certain gases, in particular: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) to absorb infrared (thermal) radiation emanating from the relatively warm surface of the planet, preventing it from dissipating into relatively cold space.
What greenhouse gases are present in the atmosphere in significant quantities?
The answer is H2O (about 1 percent) and CO2 (about 0.04 percent).
So: there is 25 times more water vapor than carbon dioxide.
And no one argues that the greenhouse effect is created mainly by water vapor.
Why then did not H2O, but CO2 become the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?

There is no clear physical explanation for this political phenomenon.
But there is a clear economic explanation.
An attempt to declare a global fight against water vapor emissions would look like idiocy, and even propaganda on TV would not help here. It is known that about a cubic kilometer of water per minute evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans. This is a billion tons (gigaton). This is how 2.26*10^12 MJ (mega-joules) of energy is transferred in the form of heat of evaporation: 1000 times more than the energy consumption of the entire human civilization in the same minute. An attempt by the climate shop at the UN to regulate H2O emissions would be commented on by Aesop's famous phrase: "Drink the sea, Xanthus." A global economic H2O quota scam would not work.

Another thing is the regulation of CO2 emissions. The carbon cycle in nature is not as widely covered in textbooks and popular science literature as the water cycle. And therefore, it is possible to feed pseudoscientific reasoning to the mass audience. Something like this:
- Industry burns coal and hydrocarbon fossil fuels, and emits combustion products into the atmosphere - already 30 billion tons of CO2 per year.
- Due to these emissions, the CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- It increased the greenhouse effect. As a result average temperature The Earth has grown by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (ie, since the beginning of the intensive burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, temperatures could rise by about 6 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
- Next - see thrillers about the thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.

Let's look at this and pose the question: before our civilization - why did global warmings occur after the ice ages, which happened on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And more local issue: why there were small warmings after small glaciations in the already historical period, but before the machine civilization. Good famous example: In the 10th century, the Vikings, traveling from Iceland to the west, discovered Greenland and Newfoundland. These were areas with a warm temperate climate, and Newfoundland even grew grapes. At present, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century fell on warming (historians call it the "medieval climatic optimum"). And the warming has done without industrial emissions of CO2.

The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remarks. Although all prehistoric warmings happened without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And there is a well-founded reason for this. scientific theory, according to which the increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not a cause, but a consequence of warming (we will return to the mechanism of this increase a little later). The warming itself is due to completely different factors.

There is a powerful regular factor: the flow of radiant energy from the Sun. He, in a complex periodic law depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-term fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles can be named (the duration of which, respectively: about 100, about 200, and about 2300 years).
2) Orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes in the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in the angles of illumination due to Lunar-Solar precession (Milankovitch cycles with periods of 10 thousand years, 26 thousand years, and 93 thousand years).

There are irregular factors - eruptions of super-volcanoes and the fall of large asteroids. They cause emissions of fine dust, which remains in the upper atmosphere for a long time and shields sunlight. This mechanism worked on a relatively small time scale in 1816 (the so-called year without summer) after the eruption of Tambor. Calculations possible depth cold snaps are known from the so-called. "models nuclear winter».

These factors really determine the climate of the Earth, in particular, the average temperature. Now let's look at what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to an experiment on a simple physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) Bucket with hot water(moderately hot, without extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can Borj, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
We put the first bottle in the cold, and the second in heat.
I'm waiting for an hour.
Next - open both bottles and visually and evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily come out of the first bottle, and a foam fountain is likely to come out of the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.

The oceans are a kind of bottle filled with 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of mineralized water (or, in mass units: 1.35 billion gigatonnes). A number of gases are dissolved in water.
In particular, the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean exceeds 100,000 gigatons.
The mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2 thousand gigatons (50 - 60 times less than in the ocean).
During periods of constant average temperature on the planet, an equilibrium is established between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 dissolved in the ocean.
With global cooling, the equilibrium shifts towards dissolved CO2.
With global warming, the equilibrium shifts towards atmospheric CO2.

So: the currently observed increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is a consequence (and not a cause) of global warming. We can say that this addition of CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect, creating a secondary factor in global warming. But such a contribution is very insignificant compared to the primary factor (an increase in the flux of radiant energy from the Sun). If we discuss the secondary factor of the greenhouse effect, then it is necessary to consider the contribution not of CO2, but of H2O - the predominant greenhouse gas (see above). As the temperature rises, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which means it traps a large proportion of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface. The "water" greenhouse process has back side, but more on that later.

Now let's return to CO2 and estimate the scale of the technogenic (anthropogenic) factor in the circulation of this gas.
So: there are 2,000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere right now, and this amount completes a full cycle in about 4 years. 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year enters the atmosphere through the processes of release from the ocean, and the processes of decomposition of organic matter in the biosphere. The same amount - 500 gigatonnes of CO2 per year is bound in the process of photosynthesis.
Industry (as mentioned) emits 30 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into the atmosphere.
When these 30 gigatons are quoted after the 500 gigaton biological cycle, such a "contribution" anthropogenic factor into carbon emissions” no longer looks impressive.
However, as stated above, CO2 is not the cause of global warming anyway.

Like this: it's kind of boring. The greenhouse topic of CO2 has shrunk, and there is no intrigue.
Let's have fun. Imagine that humanity will uncontrollably burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels, and quickly burn all of its fossil reserves. And - against the background of global warming caused by the primary (solar) factor. If you add fuel to the fire in this way, what will happen to the climate. Is it possible to know the result without delving deeply into numerical climate models?

It turns out that it is possible, because there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 that is now accumulated in fossil fuels was in the atmosphere. Welcome to the Carboniferous Paleozoic era. Then, about 330 million years ago, after a long ice age global warming has set in. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees warmer than today). As in the soda bottle experiment, CO2 began to flow from the ocean into the atmosphere, and its concentration increased from 0.02 percent to 0.4 percent (10 times higher than today). Due to increased evaporation from the surface of the oceans, the concentration of "greenhouse" H2O in the atmosphere has increased. Strip tropical climate expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentration of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, in the course of geological processes, turned from biomass into coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular, terrestrial ones) that exist now developed precisely then. In general: a celebration of life 30 million years long or so. None global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.

But what if the solar factor hadn't changed at the end of the Carboniferous? Maybe, in this case, the greenhouse effect from H2O and CO2 would still lead to a climate catastrophe?
Answer: no. 30 million years is more than enough for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Note: that the apologists for the idea of the Kyoto Protocol threaten a catastrophe by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is associated with the previously noted feature of the "water" greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although, in the lower atmosphere, H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, contributing to warming, in the upper atmosphere (in particular, in the very cold stratosphere), its role is changing. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals with high light reflection. These clouds shield sunlight even more effectively than microparticles of volcanic ash (see the Tambora eruption, "a year without a sun"). With a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, there is a transfer to the upper layers, and the area of such clouds - screens that reduce the light flux to the surface - increases. A kind of natural climate control with negative feedback characteristic of our planet.

In general: even if humanity, against the backdrop of warming, quickly burns all available fossil fuel reserves, and the CO2 content in the atmosphere rises to the late Paleozoic level, this will still not lead to a catastrophe. So the theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is pseudoscientific in every way.

Also, this protocol seems to rely on fake measurement data. So:
"Climategate" - a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the Center for Climate Research at the University of East Anglia, and found interesting correspondence director of the Climate Research Unit, CRU. She showed that the justifications for the Kyoto Protocol included falsifications about the climate for about 20 years.
Here it would be possible to put the word END and a period. But then there will be an unsolved mystery: where did the theoretical part of this pseudoscientific scam come from? Where did the "greenhouse" terminology come from, and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's go back 50 years to the "golden decades of astronautics".
When in 1967 the unmanned spacecraft Mariner 5 explored the atmosphere of Venus, scientists were surprised by its very high temperature and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close size, close mass), but its orbit is a quarter closer to the Sun.
This means that Venus receives twice as much heat from the Sun.
If we assume that Venus is in thermal equilibrium, then it should radiate as much heat into space as it receives from the Sun. The thermal radiation of the body (and in particular - the planet) is proportional to the absolute temperature to the fourth power.
Based on this, one could roughly estimate the temperature on Venus at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 found a temperature of 460 Celsius and a pressure of 90 atmospheres on Venus.
A theory soon arose to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth of the same time (Archaean era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees warmer. This difference was enough that the oceans did not form in a certain period. geological history, and all the CO2 contained in the primary atmosphere remained in it. Under these conditions, the greenhouse effect worked, which catastrophically heated the surface of Venus.
CO2 - carbon dioxide, the main product during the combustion of any mineral fuel, turned out to be the culprit in turning Venus into a red-hot hell!

And, after the mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner-5 flight, in 1975 the journal Science published an article by Wallace Broeker “Climate Change: Are we on the verge of a sharp global warming?”, In which, for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, a dangerous anthropogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
A great horror story to scare public opinion and build a scam on greenhouse gas emissions trading, fundraising, etc. Grants are important - to get "confirmation on behalf of science." This is how it works, and will probably work for a long time to come. Public opinion is so intimidated that the US administration's recent rejection of the Paris Protocol has sparked a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and media thrillers.

Of course, such an outraged public did not delve into the calculations, and did not notice that the propagandists of the fight against the greenhouse effect, apply a mathematical model built not for the Earth (on which we live), but for Venus, (which receives twice as much solar heat and light than Earth, and on which a water ocean has not formed, which makes a catastrophic greenhouse effect possible).

This pseudoscientific-detective story with a model substitution of the Earth - Venus could seem like an absurd conspiracy theory. But, scientific popularizers of the fight against the greenhouse effect on Earth, themselves point out as the strongest argument - the well-known and impressive result of the greenhouse effect on Venus.

…Reading the Daily Mail, January 10, 2018
Or a presentation in Russian - from the network source Liga.net for January 11, 2018
Renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has warned that the Earth will become "hot as hell" as a result of global warming. It is reported by the Daily Mail.
The theoretical physicist suggested that the Earth will become like Venus: the average temperature on our planet will reach 460 degrees Celsius, if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced. According to NASA experts, 4 billion years ago, Venus, like the Earth, had an atmosphere, but due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases, the atmosphere of the planet "burned out".
"The next time you meet someone who denies climate change, tell them to go to Venus. I'll pay the fare," Hawking concluded.

I would like to invite some scientists (and scientific publicists) to make a return journey: from an imaginary Venus to a real Earth. By the way, the ride is free.
It remains to make two final remarks.

1. Adherents of the Kyoto Protocol themselves do not believe in their CO2-greenhouse theory.
If they really believed in the power of the greenhouse demon named CO2, then they would obviously urge not to let this dangerous creature out of the bowels of the Earth at all.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, quite a realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy was 80 percent self-sufficient in energy from nuclear power plants ...
... But, we do not hear and do not see calls "Long live the peaceful atom" from the commissions working on the Kyoto-Paris theme of combating the greenhouse effect.
On the contrary, from international environmental organizations there are calls to phase out nuclear power. It's illogical, on the one hand. And on the other hand, this means that the matter is not in the CO2 threat (which is not), but in the monetary and stock effect (which is).
And, it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, as well as the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that extract hydrocarbon fuels.

2. Of course, there are man-made environmental problems on Earth. That this particular CO2 problem is fictional does not change the real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the oceans with oil products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of the regions of extraction of fossil raw materials.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
…Etc.
But, apparently, at the High International Level it is more profitable to deal with fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and false data. So it goes…

Global Temperature Change 1850−2016

On April 22, 2016, the participants of the Climate Conference in Paris signed the Paris Agreement, which regulates measures to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 2020. To date Paris Agreement- the main hope of mankind to stop warming before we reach the "point of no return" in the form of an irreversible process that supports itself (warming will cause the glaciers to melt and the permafrost to further warming and so on).

The goal of the agreement is to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C and "make efforts" to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C (see spiral chart). To this end, the parties to the agreement agreed to start reducing carbon dioxide emissions after reaching the peak of CO 2 emissions “as soon as possible”.

Unfortunately, not everything is so simple. Reducing CO 2 emissions may not be enough to stop the warming of the Earth. This topic is covered in a report on "negative emissions" technologies, compiled by scientists from more than 20 countries that are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of European Academies. By "negative emissions" is meant the purification of the atmosphere from greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

In their report, the academicians once again say well-known things: in this moment humanity is not making enough efforts to stop global warming. We are not even close to a trajectory that will limit the heating of the atmosphere to 2 °C.

What's worse, in recent times scientists are discussing the theory that even reducing CO2 emissions will not be enough to stop the warming spiral. Climatologists believe that we have already driven ourselves into a rather difficult position - there is little time left. And now, in order to fit into the 2 ° C framework, it will be necessary not only to reduce emissions, but also to actively remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, otherwise the process of heating the planet will become irreversible.

It puts humanity complex issue: Will we be able to develop and scale technologies to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere in sufficient short term until irreversible heating has begun? The report looks at seven ways to remove CO 2 from the atmosphere:

Recovery forest areas
Rational tillage to increase the carbon content there
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Advanced weathering (when silicates or carbonates dissolve in rainwater, CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere)
Direct Air Capture and Carbon Storage (DACCS)
Ocean fertilization (plankton and other plants capture CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into organic matter)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

For each of these technologies, scientists publish feasibility studies and forecasts. Unfortunately, the forecasts are disappointing.

To reach the trajectory of limiting heating to within 2 °C, it is necessary to remove at least 11 billion tons of CO 2 from the atmosphere annually by 2050 to compensate for emissions. Scientists believe that in practice such indicators will be difficult to achieve. different reasons. For example, reforestation in sufficient quantities to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will require the planting of new forests from 320 million to 970 million hectares, which is 20-60% of the arable land of human civilization. However, forests take decades to grow, there is a risk of re-emission of CO 2 through fires and other problems. Success stories there is recovery: for example, China has invested more than $100 billion in reforestation on an area of 434,000 km². But these are isolated examples.

Experts believe that only some of these options can be scaled up and remove a maximum of 3-4 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But this is a theoretical possibility. In reality, none of these options are currently being promoted on a global scale and are not developing at a sufficient pace. It would seem that reforestation and carbon storage in the soil seem to be the most simple options. But in fact, humanity is currently doing just the opposite: cutting down forests and contributing to soil degradation. Because of this, carbon dioxide emissions only increase, not decrease.

Scientists believe that to prevent further global warming, it will be necessary not only to reduce CO 2 emissions, but also to apply the entire arsenal of technologies that are available to mankind.

About such a problem as global warming, they began to talk in the middle of the last century. Until now, this issue is the cause of numerous discussions, the topic of international symposiums and plots. documentaries. Even a person far from environmental disciplines knows what global warming is. It is expressed as an increase in the average climate temperature over the past 100 years.

But is global warming as dangerous as it is portrayed by scientists and the media? When will it start? What changes will happen to the planet due to climate warming? What awaits humanity in the worst case? Is it capable global community solve the problem of global warming?

What is evidence of climate warming?

The temperature has been documented for 150 years. Over the past century, it has increased by an average of 0.5°C. A sharp warming of the climate occurred in the 1970s, when industrial activity intensified. Not only did the air temperature rise, but so did the water.

Global warming has led to an intense decrease snow cover, melting and retreat of glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland and high mountain peaks. The consequence of this was the rise of the ocean level by about 10 cm. These and other phenomena prove that global warming is a real environmental problem.

What caused the warming?

Forest fires (during them a huge amount of carbon dioxide is released, moreover, a large number of trees are destroyed, turning it into oxygen during photosynthesis).
Permafrost (methane is released from the soil located in the permafrost area).
World Ocean (water bodies are the main source of steam).
Volcanoes (when it erupts, an enormous amount of carbon dioxide is released).
Fauna (organisms that exhale carbon dioxide significantly increase its concentration in the atmosphere).

However, the greenhouse effect itself does not pose a threat - without it, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18°C. The point is that human activity over the past few decades has led to a significant increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases, and, consequently, to an increase in climate temperature.

There are a number of other hypotheses that explain the occurrence of global warming on Earth. Satellite data suggest that the increase in climate temperature is caused by increased solar activity not typical for previous years. However, scientists do not have a complete picture of the change in the activity of the luminary for the publication of specific conclusions. The main facts indicate that the causes of global warming lie precisely in anthropogenic activities.

Factors that significantly increase the concentration of greenhouse gases:

Heavy industry (the main source of carbon dioxide emissions is the extraction and combustion of oil, gas and other minerals).
Agriculture (when the soil is intensively fertilized and treated with insecticides, nitrogen dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, is released from it).
(the destruction of the "lungs of the planet" leads to an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide).
Overpopulation (a huge amount of natural resources is required to meet the needs of the Earth's population).
Landfills ( most of no waste recycling, but is burned or buried, which leads to a fundamental change in the biological system).

Despite the fact that humans have significantly contributed to climate warming, some scientists still prefer to divide the causes of global warming into natural and anthropogenic.

What awaits the planet in the future?

Global warming will lead not only to a further increase in the temperature of the earth's surface, but also to other changes. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions will increase. The level of the World Ocean will rise by half a meter in 100 years, in addition, the salinity of the water will change. The air will become more humid. Precipitation will begin to fall more intensively, their distribution will change, and the temperature maximum threshold will also increase. The melting of glaciers will accelerate.

Global warming will affect the flow weather events: winds and cyclones will increase and become more frequent. Natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes, will occur more regularly, and their scale will increase significantly.

Ecologists identify several regions of the earth, which will be particularly affected by the effects of global warming:

Sahara Desert;
Antarctic;
Delta major rivers Asia;
Little islands.

Less rain will fall in the tropics and subtropics. As a result of global warming, arid regions of the Earth and deserts will increase in area, and eternal Frost move further north.

Climate change will shift habitats species, which in turn will jeopardize the safety of living beings, there will be a serious danger of extinction of organisms.

One of the controversial consequences of global warming is. A change in the density of ocean waters caused by climate warming will lead to the fact that the picture sea currents will become similar to the one that was during the Ice Age.

An increase in the number of industrial enterprises, landfills and waste disposal, the development of oil and gas fields will lead to an irreversible change in the composition air shell Earth.

Under the optimistic scenario, under which greenhouse gas emissions will remain at the same level, critical situation will come to the planet in 300 years. Otherwise, irreversible consequences will be observed in 100 years.

Global warming will lead to changes not only in the biosphere, but also in economic activity and in society. The growth of drought areas will lead to a reduction in sown areas, Agriculture will go into decline. Developed countries will face the problem of hunger and lack of drinking water.

Is it possible for man to solve the problem of warming?

No matter how pessimistic the scenarios for the development of global warming are, humanity is still able to take measures so that the Earth does not become like Venus. The most promising for today are two main directions of combating global warming:

enhanced reduction of emissions;
use of environmental technologies.

However, it is not completely clear which method implementation will make it more likely to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate warming. Moreover, the effectiveness of both measures has been repeatedly called into question.

Drastically reducing emissions will become increasingly difficult as economic activity picks up developing countries. To ensure the rapid growth of GDP, colossal energy resources are needed, the source of which is oil, gas and coal. Burning natural resources is the main cause of emissions large quantities carbon dioxide. Due to the scale and financial costs, it is not possible to re-equip the old industrial enterprises according to modern environmental standards. International agreements, in particular the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on the control of greenhouse gases, are failing.

The second direction in the fight against global warming is associated with the use of bioengineering technologies. Currently, installations are being created for pumping carbon dioxide into special mines. Scientists are working on extraordinary solutions, such as using aerosols to increase the reflectivity of the upper atmosphere. Whether this will be effective is still unknown.

Combining the two methods in the future will achieve best results. Improving catalytic converters and fuel combustion systems in cars will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce heavy metals. The use of alternative energy sources will help to reduce emissions by several times, but at the moment these technologies require large financial investments. An important fact what remains is that the production of solar panels and windmills is also accompanied by a colossal emission.

Smaller, but no less significant measures to address global warming include:

increase in green spaces;
the use of energy-saving devices and appliances;
waste recycling;
drawing public attention to the problem.

If a international control and large-scale environmental projects seem far from Everyday life, then the above methods apply to all the inhabitants of the planet. Cycling and a vegetarian diet will not harm you (rather it will be useful!), but the involvement and caring of those who call the Earth their home will help prevent the effects of global warming. Just as once people “by joint efforts” violated the natural balance, so now, with the interest of everyone, it will be possible to avoid catastrophic changes.

Global warming caused by natural and anthropogenic causes is a truly large-scale problem of our time. A person should not remain indifferent to it and miss ways to prevent climate change!

In atmosphere?

- Yes. After all, a significant part of this problem lies in the field of energy, and everyone needs energy: light, heat, transport, the production of any product requires energy, and we get energy in the process of burning fossil fuels, as a result of which greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere.

— Let's start with housing: people are not ready to give up comfort, they want to live in warm and bright houses, is it possible to somehow save energy?

Most of the energy in homes is spent on heating and hot water. Therefore, one of the simplest actions is to insulate windows, doors, make sure that the batteries work well and are not clogged. In old houses, you can see batteries that are located under the window sills in recesses in the wall - so that behind the battery is a thin wall through which most of the heat escapes. This problem can be solved by sticking a layer of material on the wall behind the battery, which consists of insulation and foil. This material is simple, cheap, and easy to find in stores.

For savings hot water you can take a shower instead of a bath. You need 200 liters of water for a bath, 40-50 for a shower, 60 for the biggest shower lovers, but certainly not 200. There are also water-saving shower heads. In our country they are known as massage and can give a thin and strong jet of water. At the same time, the shower feels strong, and less water is wasted.

use washing machine and dishwashers more economical than rinsing clothes or washing dishes under running water. Although, of course, if, of course, you, like an Englishman, plugged the sink with a cork, filled it with mild soapy water, washed the dishes, and only then poured clean water to rinse the dishes, you will save more resources than a dishwasher. In any case, you must also monitor the consumption of detergents so as not to pollute once again wastewater and with them rivers and seas.

- One of the most known ways to save electricity is to use energy-saving light bulbs ...

- Yes, but you need to take into account that now on fluorescent energy saving lamps put a cross, because they contain poisonous, and it was not possible to arrange their disposal. Therefore, all over the world are switching to the use of LED lamps. So far, they are still expensive, but they consume almost 10 times less energy and last about 20 times longer than incandescent lamps, so they quickly pay for themselves.

To save energy, sensors are also very effective, which react to movement and turn on the light only when it is needed. They can be installed on stairs or in corridors. I know one five-story building where such sensors were installed on the stairs, and it turned out that the light was needed there for only 26 minutes, not 24 hours a day. But here we are no longer talking about a separate apartment, but about a common space in apartment building.

— Are there many emissions into the atmosphere from transport and can they be somehow reduced?

— Transport consumes 4/5 of the world's oil reserves and in major cities gives 80% of air pollution, respectively, and it affects the climate in a decisive way. But here the choice is very simple: public transport instead of a car. And if you need to go on vacation, but not very far, then it is better to choose a train instead of a plane, it will be much more environmentally friendly. In the European Union, there is even a rule for business trips: for a distance of less than 400 kilometers, the plane is not paid - only the train. Well, for very short distances, it is best to choose a bicycle.

Another way people rarely think about reducing our impact on the climate is through our purchases. When we select products in a store, we tend not to pay attention to how far the product has been manufactured. If we choose oil from New Zealand, we must take into account that it has traveled 17 thousand kilometers. How much fuel was spent on the delivery of this oil, how much energy was spent on storing it in the refrigerator along the way! Extra packaging is also an extra waste of energy. For example, if instead of just a cucumber, buying a cucumber in polyethylene or on a pallet and in polyethylene, then this is also a waste of resources, which means an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact that the climate is changing and this is due to the burning of fossil fuels is no longer in doubt among scientists. The consequences of global warming, if it cannot be slowed down, could be