Two articles on global warming

Warm Road to Kyoto As is known, Russia intends to sign the Kyoto Protocol in the near future, which regulates industrial carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. This is not merely the addition of another “signatory.” With Russia’s accession, the international treaty will be able to enter into force within the stipulated time, and the relationship between human civilization and the biosphere, in a sense, will transition to a new phase — the international community will engage economic mechanisms to counter the global ecological crisis. The joy of a universal human victory is slightly tainted by one circumstance: most likely, the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective. But does that mean it should not have been signed? Where does carbon dioxide come from? To understand the essence of the problem, one must start with simple truths. Our world is inhabited by two groups of living beings, for each of which the resources are the waste or metabolic products of the other group. We are talking about autotrophs (organisms capable of synthesizing organic substances from inorganic ones) and heterotrophs (requiring an external source of organics). Autotrophs and heterotrophs correspond to each other like two halves of a broken plate (Fig. 1). [IMG_1] Fig. 1. Ecological balance in the biosphere is based on equilibrium between photosynthesis and respiration Of course, the relationships shown in the figure are simplified. Organics are also produced through chemosynthesis and broken down by glycolysis (anaerobic carbohydrate breakdown in tissues; its consequences cause muscle soreness after heavy exertion), fermentation, and combustion. Nevertheless, the ecological balance in the biosphere can be conveyed through the equilibrium between the most powerful processes — photosynthesis and respiration, and thus through the balance between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Living organisms are not merely adapted to their environment: they have created it. A fundamental feature of the modern ecological balance is the dominance of photosynthesis (and oxygen release). Initially, Earth had a reducing atmosphere, but cyanobacteria, among the first photosynthesizers, released so much oxygen (a by‑product, essentially a toxic waste) that they oxidized the entire atmosphere and the planet’s surface. Oxygenic evolution allowed complex organisms — plants, animals, and fungi — to spread; additionally, an ozone layer formed, shielding ionizing radiation and enabling life to colonize land. Where did the organic matter that corresponded to the oxygen spent oxidizing the atmosphere go? It resides as fossil fuels in the Earth’s crust (When opponents of nuclear power plants calculate how long humanity’s organic reserves in the crust will last, they forget that there simply will not be enough air to burn them), alongside the oxygen that has been lost to space. Photosynthesis still outweighs respiration, which is why atmospheric oxygen is about 21% and, according to 2004 data, carbon dioxide is 0.0379%. [IMG_2] Fig. 2. Human population growth and the increase in atmospheric carbon‑dioxide concentration are closely linked. Both parameters surged in the mid‑20th century. Yet humanity increasingly shifts the balance toward carbon dioxide (Fig. 2). We use organics not only for our bodies but also “feed” our machinery with fossil organics. Combustion is analogous to respiration, but it proceeds faster and is accompanied by the dispersion of released energy. We lack organics produced by autotrophs “in real time,” so we draw on reserves from other epochs — fossil fuels. As a result, we emit CO₂ and violate the holiest of holies — the global ecological balance. But burning fossil fuel is not the whole story. Our agricultural practices lead to rapid soil degradation and the destruction of stored organic matter. Detritus — organic matter at various stages of decomposition — plays an important role in soil fertility. The more intensively we exploit arable lands, the more we accelerate detritus breakdown and CO₂ release into the atmosphere! Measuring these emissions is more difficult than industrial ones, but they are likely comparable in intensity. Why do we live in a greenhouse? The greenhouse mechanism is very simple. The higher the temperature, the higher the energy (and the shorter the wavelength) of electromagnetic waves emitted by a physical body. The Sun is much hotter than Earth. The peak of solar radiation lies in the visible part of the spectrum (wavelength about 0.5 µm), while Earth’s surface peaks in the infrared (about 10 µm). Our planet’s atmosphere (as well as glass and polyethylene film in greenhouses) transmits the visible part of the spectrum better than the infrared. This property causes the Earth’s surface to receive more radiant energy than it emits, leading to warming (until the heated air begins to radiate an equivalent amount of energy into space). The greenhouse effect is one of the conditions for the existence of advanced life on our planet. Without it, the average surface temperature of Earth (+15 °C) would be –23 °C. Water vapor, clouds and fog, atmospheric aerosols, methane, and especially carbon dioxide possess greenhouse properties. The direction of climate change seems settled: it is warming. Is it surprising that many link warming to the greenhouse effect and CO₂ emissions? And the warming is serious. The years 1998, 2002, and 2003 were record‑hot. Last summer in Europe, according to WHO data, 20 000 people died from heat, and 30 % of the harvest was lost in the south of the continent. Ocean warming of 0.1 °C per year, glacier area reduction, and sea‑level rise of 0.7–3 mm per year have been recorded (Why do you think the United Kingdom and Japan lead the fight against global warming? Rising sea levels will hit islands hardest…). The fastest temperature increases occur along the Antarctic coast: in some places up to 2.5 °C over the past sixty years. This accelerates glacier calving into the ocean and further melting (see “KT” #563). Another consequence of global warming is the increase in destructive hurricanes, droughts, and floods due to altered atmospheric circulation. On the other hand, the climate has changed in the past. Could another glaciation occur? Man appeared when our planet was feverish. This is no accident — climate changes spurred animal evolution. Earth’s history includes cold periods (e.g., at the end of the Paleozoic, 250–300 Ma), but the relatively recent epoch was warm. Cooling began about 36 Ma. As lithospheric plates moved, Antarctica separated from South America and Australia and settled over the South Pole. A circumpolar current formed, reducing heat exchange with the rest of the planet. Antarctica became covered by an ice sheet, which lowered solar absorption and “cooled” the climate. However, glaciation begins only when precipitation on glaciers exceeds loss by evaporation and melting. Isolated Antarctic currents received little precipitation. Three to four million years ago, North and South America connected via the Panamanian isthmus. Warm Atlantic water, previously flowing into the Pacific, was redirected northward by the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current, bringing abundant precipitation. Glaciers in Greenland, North America, and northern Eurasia grew and advanced southward as multi‑kilometer ice sheets. They linked massive water masses; climate cooling altered atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Yet cold, dry air settled over the glaciers, causing the glaciation to “stall” and retreat — a warm interglacial began. Restored warm currents then promoted glacier growth — another glaciation started… Since then, Earth has experienced about two dozen glacial and interglacial periods. Mean temperature fluctuations over a cycle range by several degrees (up to 10 °C), and sea‑level changes by tens to hundreds of meters. During the last warming (over 20 ka) the ocean rose 120 m; melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps could add another 65–70 m. Besides the “major” glaciations and interglacials, there were minor ones. For example, from the late 9th to the late 12th centuries the climate was particularly mild. During that time Norwegian Vikings settled Greenland (the “Green Land”) and founded a settlement in North America. With cooling, contacts with the colonies ceased and the colonists perished; their remains bear the mark of chronic malnutrition. From 1450–1850 a “Little Ice Age” froze canals in the Netherlands and even the Thames. While the described oscillatory climate system operates, a deviation in one direction can trigger a mechanism that pushes the climate the opposite way. Thus, the current warming could be followed by a new glaciation. Are climate models reliable? One might think there is no need to guess. Build a climate‑change model, incorporate all known interrelations, and make a scientifically grounded forecast. Unfortunately, Earth’s atmosphere is so complex that deterministic modeling is impossible [“No one believes tomorrow’s weather forecast. Here we are asked to trust a forecast a hundred years ahead… Since climate is a chaotic system whose behavior no one can predict with certainty, all forecasts are, to put it mildly, doubtful” (Michael Crichton, www.computerra.ru/offline/2004/527/31872)]. Small changes in initial parameters can lead to radical alterations in the expected future of the climate system. Moreover, we still do not know all causal links influencing climate. Here are a few sketches. — Apparently, solar activity has increased in recent years, leading to Earth’s warming. — Rising CO₂ concentration stimulates photosynthesis and increases planetary productivity. — Warming leads to increased water evaporation, greater cloud cover, and more solar radiation reflected by clouds — i.e., self‑cooling. — Sea‑level rise will flood the most fertile land and reduce CO₂ sequestration. — Acid rain stimulates sulfur‑oxidizing bacteria, which suppress methane‑producing bacteria — providers of another “greenhouse” gas. — In response to excess ultraviolet radiation, phytoplankton release substances that promote cloud formation. — Human activity not only emits CO₂ but also pollutes the atmosphere with dust and soot. Global “dimming” could cause cooling. And now Earth’s magnetic poles seem poised to swap places, weakening the planet’s magnetic field and increasing radiation flux. How will the biosphere react, and how will this affect climate?.. Finally, some specialists convincingly argue that increasing CO₂ concentration cools rather than warms the planet! Heating of the lower atmosphere may enhance its vertical circulation and energy dispersion into space. Proponents of this view claim that Antarctic drilling results show that, in recent Earth history, CO₂ rise was a consequence, not a cause, of warming. Everything is complicated! Is the Kyoto Protocol beneficial for Russia? The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by the heads of developed countries at the end of 1997. Its task is to significantly (for example, for the EU — by 8%) reduce industrial CO₂ emissions by 2010 compared with 1990 levels. This limitation could slow global economic growth by about 1% per year. In the second phase of the protocol, beginning after 2012, emissions should be cut roughly by half. According to the document, highly developed countries may purchase emission quotas from other nations. Moreover, leading powers can earn the right to over‑produce carbon dioxide by financing the transition to modern technologies in other countries. The more a country lags, the more advantageous its development becomes. To reduce CO₂ emissions by one tonne, Russia must spend $20, Ukraine $7, the EU $270, and Japan $600! A peculiarity of the protocol is the built‑in inequality among parties. The greatest burden falls on world leaders, while China’s and India’s emissions are not yet slated for regulation. So far, 128 countries have ratified the protocol, but their votes are insufficient, representing less than 55% of total emissions. This is due to the refusal of the main player — the United States (37% of emissions) — and also Australia to ratify. Consequently, Russia’s vote (17%) became decisive. Although our country signed the protocol in 1997, the government only now forwarded the relevant documents to the Duma. Currently, Russia’s emissions are about 80% of the 1990 level (Russia and Ukraine have bought the right not to reduce them). This threshold will likely be crossed in 2007–2011, after which the protocol will cease to boost Russia’s economy and will begin to restrain it. There is a view that, thanks to the Kyoto Protocol, Russia will profit from the collapse of its industry. Emission shortfalls could be sold to other countries, allowing a comfortable life (and perhaps find a “diamond” to sell and hire foreigners to bring order while Russians vacation in the Canary Islands). Unfortunately, under the protocol, only emission‑reduction quotas linked to technological improvement can be sold. Nevertheless, by negotiating with the international community, Russia could demand the right to sell “collapse” quotas (as it demanded the right not to cut its emissions). Some experts think we should negotiate better, asking that the economic specifics and the contribution of our forests be taken into account. Others assume that Europe’s shift to gas (the most efficient fuel) will support the Russian economy, making the Kyoto Protocol beneficial for Russia in any case. Strange arguments are also put forward by opponents of the protocol. Some claim that Russia will benefit from global warming: supposedly Siberian climate will improve. From the thawing tundra one could gleefully watch the great famine in China. It is unclear, however, how the Chinese would react and whether this would be good for Russia. In any case, under current circumstances, external pressure makes signing the Kyoto Protocol advantageous for Russia — it is just one move in a larger game (in particular, regarding WTO accession (by the way, Russia could sign the protocol, join the WTO, and exit the protocol in 2012. But (subject to Duma approval) at least until 2012 the protocol would remain in force)). Is this good or bad news for those who wish Earth to remain a suitable place for life? How to reduce carbon‑dioxide emissions? How to lower CO₂ content? The usual answer is to plant trees. Unfortunately, a stable ecosystem absorbs as much CO₂ as it releases. Otherwise, the amount of organic matter in the ecosystem would change, altering its quality. When firewood is burned and forest soil organic matter degrades, all the carbon stored by the forest returns to the atmosphere (though while forests grow they sequester CO₂; under the protocol, planting trees can even generate revenue). What can help? Technological change. Here are some solutions. The traditional route — improve fuel combustion, increase the efficiency of heat engines, save energy. This is precisely what the Kyoto Protocol pushes first. One can also accelerate the transition to other energy sources: nuclear, thermonuclear (may God let our little wolf eat it), solar, geothermal, wind, etc. All real alternatives to fossil‑fuel‑derived energy have drawbacks, but they still need development. Change the structure of energy consumption. A remarkable fact: the spread of virtual offices in the USA noticeably reduced fuel consumption for commuting! We can hope for new effects from information‑technology progress. But how to plan such an outcome? Stop soil erosion. This requires reshaping every land user’s mindset, shifting egoism from short‑term gains (obtain now) to long‑term sustainability. It is easy to discuss from a comfortable chair, but hard to implement while suffering hunger. Switch from organic fuels to hydrogen: burn hydrogen, emitting only pure water. But where to obtain the energy for hydrogen production? Where we are now? Then it is merely an extension of the energy conversion chain, leading to additional losses. Combat methane‑producing bacteria. Antibiotics to eliminate those living in the guts of ruminant ungulates are already being developed. Cows‑sheep would grow faster and stop emitting the greenhouse gas! Unfortunately, this will not qualitatively change the situation, and methanogens may adapt to antibiotics. Can the ecological balance be shifted the other way? Yes, by ensuring accumulation of non‑decomposable organics — for example, grow forests, cut them down, and fill abandoned mines with timber. But our development vector is opposite: we extract organics from the Earth’s crust rather than store them there! In the USA an idea is being explored to inject liquefied CO₂ into mines. Yet again, to obtain the energy required for CO₂ liquefaction, 30 % more fuel must be burned. A closed loop… Accelerate CO₂ sequestration into limestone, calcium carbonate… This function is tirelessly performed by mollusks, reef‑forming corals, foraminifera (marine relatives of amoebae), coccolithophores (a group of algae) and other organisms with calcareous shells and skeletons. Unfortunately, increasing ocean acidity hampers their activity.{ "translated_text": "Here they could even help! But where can we obtain a sufficient amount of calcium salts without significant energy expenditures (requiring increased carbon dioxide emissions)? In the end, we are left with the \"boring\" measures that the Kyoto Protocol essentially calls for.\nHow should one behave when standing before a tsunami wall?\nThus, there are serious grounds to fear catastrophic climate changes comparable to those shown in the American horror \"The Day After Tomorrow\". It matters less whether carbon dioxide is to blame; what matters more is what they portend for us. Already now, planetary warming is taking many lives (mainly the elderly) and causing serious economic damage…\nIs it worth panicking prematurely? The Earth has undergone even stronger climate changes, yet it remains a decent place to live. With climate change, natural zones have shifted back and forth, and life has continued its course.\nUnfortunately, the metamorphoses observed now are, from a geological perspective, simply rapid, and our planet is already being exploited in an extreme regime. The overwhelming majority of usable land is used for agriculture (if not as fields, then as pastures), and the food produced is not enough for everyone. With the shift of natural zones, overall crop yields will sharply decline: where fertile soils have formed, an unfavorable moisture regime will develop, and in areas with suitable humidity there will be no appropriate soils. From a geological standpoint – nothing terrible. A few thousand years – and soils will adapt adequately. But socially and politically? And if we consider that the proportion of the population living in hungry yet rapidly growing countries continues to rise? How will poor but populous countries react to a sharp resource shortage? How will the struggle for resource redistribution affect their quantity and accessibility?\nOptimists will say the issue is not the area of sowing but its productivity. Look at the yields harvested from small areas in the Netherlands or Israel! If the whole Earth were farmed like that, no climate change would be frightening. Yet they somehow forget how much burned fossil fuel (and emitted carbon dioxide) is spent on those yields. These technologies are unavailable to all humanity; only the richest and most successful countries can afford them (at the expense of the planet's resources). Do you think the rest of humanity will receive this kindly? Does Israel's technological superiority ensure a peaceful life surrounded by poor Arab countries?\nPerhaps climate change will simply bring about a change in the usual way of life, or perhaps it will put an end to humanity's existence. We do not know which of these assumptions is correct. Let us assume the worst: humanity is doomed to perish, and rather quickly. Does that mean resisting destiny is pointless?\nSooner or later each of us will realize our own mortality and somehow get used to it. We strive to extend our lives and spend the remaining time with dignity. Even if humanity is doomed, the best way to spend the remaining time is to fight the impending catastrophe. And if our models allow some uncertainty (oh, they do!), we are simply obliged to make every possible effort. However, for this each of us must change psychologically. If the threat of climate change forces humanity as a whole and each individual to reconsider the motives of their activity, it may play a beneficial role in our history.\nIs global regulation of our activity needed?\nMan is not just a cosmopolitan species, but the first global species. There are many cosmopolitans. For example, the gray rat (pasjuk) is found almost everywhere humans are, and also in a few other places. Yet each rat population exists thanks to the resources of its habitat. An empty barn – the rat population living there disappears. Some individuals die, some migrate elsewhere. But two rat populations will never exchange resources.\nDear reader, in how many countries are the items you use daily produced? Resource exchange between populations is our typical feature. We know various forms of such exchange – from trade to war or even humanitarian aid.\nHumanity is not merely a collection of individuals of the species Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758, but an entity with properties absent in its parts. Imagine a similar concept applied to any other species! Currently not N human populations exploiting resources of N habitats, but a single humanity exploiting the biosphere as a whole.\nThe death of one rat population does not mean the extinction of the species. A global species that has depleted biosphere resources has nowhere to run. We have reached a new level of existence, yet the mechanisms regulating our activity remain the same, tied to the population level. To survive, humanity needs new, global mechanisms regulating its relationship with the environment. They will not arise on a biological foundation; cultural regulation is needed. The Kyoto Protocol is one of the first attempts in this direction. Even if it is not effective, at least it is not harmful and mitigates some adverse consequences of our activity. Moreover, humanity in it is a single whole that has gone beyond population (ecosystem) regulation.\nDifferent cultures differ in the breadth of the group with which an individual identifies. Compare: \"we are the boys of our yard\"; \"…members of our tribe\"; \"…patriots of our country\"; \"…humanity\"; \"…living beings of the planet\"… Perhaps cultures with a broader identification in something important surpass the \"narrow\" ones? From this viewpoint the Kyoto Protocol is good. Yes, it may delay the development of Russia's industry by demanding intensive rather than extensive growth. Yes, doubling GDP is easier without caring about carbon dioxide emission control. But the treaty places humanity's welfare above the interests of individual countries.\nThe Kyoto Protocol by itself changes little. But it is one of the first steps on the path humanity must take. Therefore, this step is worth taking.\n\nGlobal warming as a phenomenon of mass consciousness\nPlanetary climate changes are at the forefront of public attention. What could more convincingly demonstrate natural disturbances than the current winter? Equally convincing was the green grass that replaced the snow‑covered slopes in Davos, where the Alpine forum of politicians and businessmen was held. It probably influenced the interests of the world’s powerful as much as the plump scientific reports. The reports, however, did not wait long to appear.\nThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created on the initiative of the UN, presented on 2 February in Paris the work of six hundred authors from forty countries – the report \"Climate Change 2007: Physical Science Basis\". Even before the report’s publication, its theses were sent to interested governments and preceded by media messages. Finally, climatologists reached consensus. Over the 20th century, average temperatures rose by 0.7 °C. This warming is very uneven: some parts of the planet warm much more, others even cool. The most important consequences of climate change are disruption of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, changes in precipitation distribution over the Earth's surface, and an increase in the number of hurricanes and storms. All this has also been reliably recorded.\nHowever, the phenomenon itself is one thing, its scientific explanation another, and the perception of all this by mass consciousness a third. We briefly mentioned the first; now let us discuss the second.\nDebates about the causes of climate change continue. It is clear, for example, that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to more complete trapping of thermal radiation from the planet’s surface. Models built on this effect describe the increase in carbon dioxide concentration as a factor warming the planet. But on the other hand, if this radiation is captured by the atmosphere close to the surface, it may lead to additional heating of lower air layers, their rise upward, and strengthening of vertical circulation that transports heat away from the surface. Convincing models exist that view the rise in carbon dioxide concentration (at levels relevant for Earth’s biosphere) as a factor that restrains warming!\nThe IPCC report authors elegantly solved the choice between alternative explanations. They stated that the probability that humanity is responsible for warming is 90% (in the previous 2001 report this probability was assessed at 60%). Convincing? And considering that no mathematical models exist to assess the probability of competing scientific explanations? Truth is not established by voting and does not obey curved probability distributions. Remember the example of female logic: what is the probability of meeting a dinosaur on the street? The correct answer is 50‑50; either you meet one or you don’t. Thus, regarding scientific disputes such logic is more honest than calculating percentages.\nFor instance, the Russian school of climatologists tends to doubt humanity’s guilt. A strong argument is the increase in solar activity recently. According to the Pulkovo Observatory, the peak has passed and the Sun has begun to \"cool\", returning to an active regime. Interestingly, NASA recorded global warming on Mars between 1999 and 2005. If this is not a Bush administration plot, what is the price of 90% confidence in an anthropogenic cause of Earth’s climate changes?\nThe lack of universally accepted bases for modeling creates difficulties in forecasting. Unfortunately, the forecasts are terrible. Moving to the \"third\" – the phenomena of mass consciousness – we must admit that the media cite these forecasts with sophisticated sadism.\nIn the 21st century warming will be 2–4.5 °C. Some cities (e.g., Sydney) will become practically uninhabitable because of it. Arctic ice and European glaciers will melt. Sea level in this century will rise modestly – only about 30 cm, but this rise will continue in the future and may reach much larger values – up to 7 m. Unfortunately, even if humanity disappears from Earth today, global warming will continue for more than a thousand years. By 2100, 200 million people will become ecological refugees. Many will die from drought, natural disasters, and sheer heat.\nNaturally, people cannot ignore such forecasts!\nFor example, in the USA the global warming problem has intriguingly intertwined with political games. President Bush (and the Republican Party) consider the warming problem fabricated. At their initiative, the discussed report considers the possibility of compensating global warming by intentionally dispersing fine dust in the upper atmosphere.\nDemocrats (and the ill‑fated presidential candidate Al Gore) have a different view on warming. Gore released a book and documentary about global warming \"An Inconvenient Truth\" with himself in the lead role. It is believed that this film sharply increased Gore’s chances of winning, should he decide to run in the 2008 presidential election. How convenient: the correctness of Democrats or Republicans should be determined by nature itself…\nA self‑appointed group of scientists, implementing a project started in 1947 called \"Doomsday Clock\", once again moved the hands of the symbolic clock measuring time to humanity’s demise. Now the clock shows not twelve minus seven minutes, but twelve minus five! Time to take the champagne out of the fridge… The approach of the hands to midnight is accompanied not by official statements but by apocalyptic forecasts from Stephen Hawking and James Lovelock. Hawking still sees some hope in the future (e.g., humanity’s escape to other planets), while Lovelock proves that it no longer exists.\nIs it right to attract public attention to nature protection in this way? It is hard to say. In the author’s opinion, the situation is too uncertain. Probably, the problem of global climate changes is indeed the most acute challenge facing humanity! Yes, perhaps collective actions similar to the Kyoto Protocol, only much larger in scale and better justified, will be needed. But will a campaign staged according to show‑business laws help out of the dangerous situation? Perhaps funding for natural sciences and their popularisation should be improved? One cannot rely on inserting the correct recipe into a frightened layperson: there is no correct recipe! One hope remains: to turn a layperson into a thinking person. Or is this an idea from the realm of science fiction?\n…Human mortality does not render one’s life meaningless nor absolve one of responsibility for one’s actions up to the last minutes. Even if a death sentence is signed for all humanity, we must still live out the hours granted to us with dignity. And if we consider the reliability of all our models, we can conclude that it is neither time to fall into sorrow nor to relax.\nWhat is the bottom line?\n1. Humanity’s life (as well as that of the author of these lines and those who read them) is not yet over.\n2. It will not be easy.\n3. We need to engage our brains.\n\n1 This does not prevent an astrophysicist from the Netherlands, a European Space Agency expert Piers Van der Meer, from frightening the public with promises that the Sun will become a supernova and explode in six years. The fact that other researchers’ data do not support this conclusion is not a problem; eschatological expectations have swept the masses at all turning points in history. Back to text\n\n2 If, let’s assume, burning oil and coal heats the atmosphere, and atomic bomb explosions lead to nuclear winter, one could select a ground explosion of such magnitude that it would throw into the atmosphere exactly as much dust as would offset the comfortable use of automobiles by Americans. What can be said about such ideas? To consider them sound, one must clearly understand the mechanisms of both global warming and nuclear winter. At the current stage such understanding does not exist. Are you sure that a hammer strike to the kidneys successfully compensates the adverse effects of an axe strike to the forehead? Back to text\n\n3 An extremely wasteful way to go from a bad place to an even worse one. Back to text\n\n4 Even if the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol’s provisions changed nothing, it gave humanity valuable experience. Back to text\nD. Shabanov. Warm Road to Kyoto // Kompyutera, M., 2004. – No. 40 (564). – pp. 48–51\nD. Shabanov. Global Warming as a Phenomenon of Mass Consciousness // Kompyutera, M., 2007. – No. 6 (674)" }