Fighting global warming requires technology we don't have. Fighting global warming with improvised means

Since ancient times, people have been inclined to believe myths. Some of them are not devoid of logic, but still more than half turn out to be complete nonsense. It's the same with global warming. Here are the common misconceptions associated with it:

1. Global warming is not happening at all.

Unfortunately it happens. Science has proven more than once, and facts have confirmed, that temperatures are rising rapidly.

If warming continues at the same rate, the level of the world's oceans will rise by 1 meter. If we assume that all the glaciers melt, which is of course impossible, then the water will rise by 10 meters. And if you consider that average height land above ocean level is 840 meters, then you shouldn’t worry so much about flooding.

5. Global warming - the only reason sudden, unpredictable weather changes.

Far from the only one. There are a number of natural, cyclical processes to which global warming has no relation. And they are what can cause sudden warming or cooling. Such factors may include ocean currents, cyclones, changes in magnetic field Earth and just coincidences.

6. Carbon dioxide emissions are too small to cause global warming.

I would like to believe, but so far the facts deny this. Based on statistical data that can be trusted, graphs of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and temperature at this time were constructed. They match.

7. Due to global warming, the temperature will soon rise so much that we will all die.

Not that much and not soon. Over the past 100 years, the temperature has increased by 0.7°C, - 1°C. And according to the most daring forecasts, in the next 100 years it may increase by another 4.6°C, but most likely this increase will not exceed 2°C. Less likely, but there are models that even predict a cold snap.

8. We will only benefit from global warming.

In some areas it will be possible to rejoice in an unusual way warm weather, but the cost of negative consequences will exceed any benefits. The number of illnesses and deaths due to heat will increase.

9. This will only benefit agriculture.

Well, how to look. If we take into account that warming will affect every inhabitant of the planet (and hit them painfully), then I think it will be more serious.

12. The causes of global warming are known.

Many people believe that man is entirely to blame for global warming and that only by stopping industrial activity can a catastrophe be avoided. In fact, the problem of climate change is so new that it is now impossible to say with certainty about its causes. The fact that it is happening is a fact, but the fact that it is the result of anthropogenic human activity is far from the only version. For example, there is a version that this is the result of natural processes occurring in the Sun - Space system.

13. We know how to fight global warming, we have technology.

Strategic plan is under development. There are several large-scale options for combating global warming, but they are all from the realm of science fiction, and they require colossal investments comparable to the US budget, but many small changes are better than one big one.

14. We can't do anything about it.

Everyone can now contribute to the fight against global warming, even if simply by being rational in their consumer activities.

If you liked this material, then we offer you a selection of the best materials on our site according to our readers. Selection - TOP interesting facts and important news from around the world and about different important events you can find it where it is most convenient for you

Humanity, oddly enough, can not only destroy the planet, but also protect it. Global warming is too big a problem to solve alone, but taking green actions on your own can make a small difference and inspire others to do the same. And this article will tell you how to combat global warming on a personal level.

We make political decisions

Changing consumer habits

Eat vegetarian or vegan foods. Cattle - source greenhouse gases, surpassing in this sense all transport on the planet. Here, however, not only livestock is involved, but also the entire process of meat production - from creating fertilizers, to growing grain and transporting it to feeders, and so on. With what more people adhere to a vegetarian diet, the less water is wasted in the agricultural sector and the more favorable the situation becomes in terms of biodiversity.
- If you eat meat, eat locally raised meat that is not imported from far away.
- Eat meat and vegetables grown on small farms rather than those produced in large factories that use environmentally destructive practices.
Reuse things more often. It is worth taking a more careful approach to the issue of recycling and processing. Dispose of glass, plastic, paper, cardboard and other recyclable waste in a designated garbage containers. Convince your neighbors and friends to do the same (especially since there are those who do not do this).
- Cloth bags are a great alternative to paper or plastic bags when you go shopping.
- Food waste It makes sense to compost it rather than throw it in the trash.
Use refilling. Instead of buying new bottle water, better fill the empty one. This is good for the environment and good for your wallet.
Buy products with minimal packaging. Not only will you produce less waste, but you will also reduce emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere, not to mention significant savings. And if it seems to you that some product is being packaged like an onion in vain, then it makes sense to call the manufacturing company and express your opinion and offer your options.
Waste less paper. Before you click on the “print” button, think carefully - is it worth it? And at the bottom of their emails put signatures that also remind the recipients of this.
- Use drafts! And you can use them to make shopping lists, notes, write down phone numbers, and so on. Throw away only the paper on which you simply can no longer write.
- If you print anything, print it on sheets of recycled paper. Remember, every pack of paper releases harmful substances into the atmosphere.
Buy local food. The idea is simple - the closer food is transported, the less energy and fuel is spent and the less harm to the environment. But food accounts for almost half of all carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by the average family.
- If you also inspire your neighbors, then sooner or later your demand will determine the supply on the market and change the situation for the better!
- Buy products at markets or in small private stores with local suppliers. It's better there than in big chain stores.
- Buy items from small local shops rather than supermarkets.
- Would you like a snack? Go to a local restaurant or cafe, not chain food establishments.
Track how much carbon you are producing. This can be done using a special calculator that calculates how much your lifestyle costs the environment. This will add an element of visibility to your fight against global warming.
- On the Internet you can find calculators adapted for people living in one country or another.
- Some products have a special logo - “Carbon counted” - which says that during the production of this product, the environment was at least remembered. As a rule, next to the logo there is a number indicating how much carbon production cost nature. Buy those products for which this number is as low as possible. Create the right demand, manage the market!

Reduce your energy consumption

We use green transport

Plant trees. The foliage, as you remember, absorbs carbon dioxide. There are even organizations that help people in this regard.
Try to consume less, save more and spend less. Rent videos and games rather than buy them, or at least buy them used. By analogy - with books, fortunately no one has closed libraries yet.
Be responsible about the electricity consumption in your office. Many organizations leave air conditioners and computers on overnight. Discuss this question with competent comrades.
Grow fast-growing plants. Let's say bamboo - it not only grows quickly, but also produces a third more oxygen than oak or birch, not to mention the fact that it requires less fertilizer and attention. Make sure the plants can grow in your area. Give preference to native species and do not plant anything potentially dangerous. By the way, you have to be careful with the same bamboo in the USA.
Try to use tap water more than bottled water. This will reduce the energy required to bottle and transport water.

Global warming is the concept of increasing global temperature. For those of you who are not aware of the concept of global warming, we would like to explain its phenomenon. The idea is that sunlight is captured by the Earth's surface due to the presence of a thick layer of carbon dioxide in it. Carbon dioxide allows sunlight to enter environment, but doesn't let him leave. There are many factors that contribute to global warming, and if we look through the pages of history, we will know that global warming started back in the 18th century - the century of the Industrial Revolution. People began to leave villages and the construction of megacities began. More and more people started moving to cities for better and more comfortable life. Some other factors responsible for global warming are deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. If this is not stopped, then this state of affairs will lead to many catastrophic consequences and will drive future generations into poverty. We must do everything that depends on us. Responsibility for ensuring our future generations have peace of mind and safe life lies on us.
Let's look at some ways we can slow down global warming and make the world best place for life.

10. Preservation of the ozone layer
Have you ever thought about whether the products you buy can be recycled? Most likely the answer will be “no”. If everyone cared about recycling the food we throw in the trash, we could reduce global warming. You will be surprised to know that by recycling half household waste can save 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide per year.

9. Use alternative heating

Try alternative ways to keep your home cool in the summer and warm in winter. Nowadays, it's not just heaters and air conditioners that can be used. There are many other methods by which we can heat or cool a home. Add insulation to the walls of your home and install weather stripping around doors and windows. By doing this, you can save up to 25% on heating costs and, as a result, £2,000 less carbon dioxide per year.

8. Switch to network adapters

Buy compact ones fluorescent lamps and replace all ordinary light bulbs with them. If you can do this, you can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases. Such lamps use two-thirds less energy and emit 70% less thermal energy.

7. Ride a bike

Cycling and walking are known to help us stay in good health. physical fitness. Try to drive as little as possible and use a bicycle for transportation. Each gallon of gas releases about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide into the environment.

6. Take advantage latest technologies to reduce global warming

Whenever you are about to buy any item household appliances, new car, remember to choose the product that is most energy efficient. Refrain from purchasing such products that are sold in large packaging. This will help prevent manufacturers from using too much packaging material and, as a result, you can prevent large amounts of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

5. Hot water management

Avoid using excessively hot water in your homes when taking a bath, washing dishes, etc. As a result of this, you will save a lot of energy and therefore prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

4. Electricity and water

Water and electricity are the main resources of humanity. Their accumulation is extremely important. The world's population is growing every second, and water supplies are decreasing significantly. When we talk about water, we mean clean drinking water, the presence of which has become a serious problem in many countries around the world. Thus, we're talking about about all the inhabitants of the Earth. To save as many of these valuable resources as possible, we must conserve them.

3. Planting trees

Plant trees without any calculation, and you can save the earth from increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Trees, through the process of photosynthesis, absorb harmful gases, including carbon dioxide, and release oxygen into the atmosphere. To some extent, it can be said that trees are natural purifiers and one tree is capable of absorbing almost a ton of carbon dioxide during its life cycle.

2. Ask utility companies for help.

To make sure your home has energy efficient systems, have your local utility company conduct an inspection of your home and identify areas that are not energy efficient.

1. Other ways to combat global warming

You must use the funds mass media, telecommunications to tell other people about saving the environment. Use social media to convey your thoughts and ideas on this matter. For one day you can set the status "Plant more trees to save the environment." Believe me, we can save our land!

What is the greenhouse effect? This is an increase in the temperature of the planet's lower atmosphere due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Its mechanism is as follows: Sun rays penetrate into the atmosphere and heat the surface of the planet. Thermal radiation that comes from the surface must return to space, but greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere trap the heat. Consequently average temperature the planet is increasing, and this leads to dangerous consequences.

Phenomenon greenhouse effect existed since the appearance of the atmosphere, although it was not so noticeable. Its main cause is human activity. Man has achieved scientific and technological progress: we burn tons of coal, oil and gas, the roads are filled with cars. The consequence of this is the release of greenhouse gases and substances into the atmosphere. Among them are water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitric oxide.

The greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming.

Global warming

Global warming is directly related to the oceans. Why is it dangerous? Due to high temperatures, glaciers and sea ice will begin to actively melt in the near future. This will lead to an inevitable rise in sea levels. We are already seeing regular floods in coastal areas, but if the level of the World Ocean rises significantly, all nearby land areas will be flooded and crops will perish.

Over the past two years, two alarming records have been set in the Arctic zone: the average temperature in this area has risen by 20° C and the area sea ice decreased significantly.

In 1981-2010, the average temperature at the beginning of winter in the Arctic region was -25 ° C, now this figure is -5 ° C. The area of sea ice in 1981-2010 reached 11 million square kilometers, and at the beginning of winter 2016-1017 it decreased up to 8.73 million square kilometers.

Over the past five years, at the same time, the thermometer has already deviated from the curve of the base period, but with a much smaller difference (only a few degrees). The situation worries climate scientists.

The decrease in sea ice surface area recorded by satellites is a consequence of global warming. And, in turn, melting ice further increases warming in the region, says climate scientist Valerie Masson-Delmot.

Which was observed this year, is also associated with global warming and thinning of the ice layer.

So, the level of the World Ocean is inevitably rising. Climatologists predict several global scenarios and have already compiled a list of cities and countries that will drown first. Among them: Shanghai, Yokohama, Malaga, Venice, Maldives.

So, even according to the most optimistic scenario, according to which the sea level will rise by the end of the century by only 1.5-2.0 m, the Maldives will have to say goodbye. The pride of Italy, the famous Venice, also continues to sink. According to the latest data, this occurs at a rate of 2 to 4 mm per year, and the process, contrary to previous studies, has not stopped for a year. Immersion in the waters of the Adriatic frightens the residents of Venice and local authorities, although it has a positive effect on the local tourism business.

How to prevent a disaster?

How can we regulate the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Oxygen does this job perfectly. But the planet's population is growing inexorably, which means more and more oxygen is being consumed. Our only salvation is vegetation, especially forests. They absorb excess carbon dioxide and release much large quantity oxygen than people consume.

Preserving existing forests and planting new ones is the main task of humanity. Plant photosynthesis is so powerful that it can provide us with huge amounts of oxygen. It's enough for normal life people and eliminating harmful gases from the atmosphere.

The second point to save the planet is to reduce the use of traditional fuels: coal, oil, gas. Transition to the use of electric vehicles and alternative energy sources.

Environmental consciousness

Google is an example of environmental awareness. Already this year, all offices and numerous service centers this Internet giant is completely switching to using “green” energy.

Google is a leader in the use of clean energy (2.6 gigawatts). By comparison, Amazon uses 1.2 gigawatts. This is the energy of the sun and wind. Back in 2010, Google signed a contract with a wind farm in Iowa.

Google did right choice: It not only saves the planet, but also saves money. Over the past six years, prices for wind and solar energy have declined by 60% and 80%, respectively.

The pollution of large cities forces the authorities to take action. One solution is to minimize the use of diesel and older vehicles. In Europe, there are programs that compensate car owners for switching from conventional cars that consume petroleum products to more environmentally friendly options. For example, in France, when switching to a hybrid, the compensation will be 6,500 euros, and when choosing an electric car - 10,000.

Also recently, the French Ministry of Environment decided to pay 200 euros for the purchase of an electric bicycle (the average price of such vehicle 1060 euros)

The use of bicycles is very popular in Europe. All conditions have been created for this: bike paths and a system of sharing bicycles (bike rental). This type of bike rental is usually created on a non-profit basis, and allows you to rent a bike at one of the automated stations, make a trip and return the bike to any rental point located in the same city. Similar programs exist in many European cities.

The largest such network is the French Vélib’, it consists of 20 thousand bicycles located at 1,450 stations in Paris. Vélib’ was launched after the success of the project Velo'v in Lyon, and is today considered the largest bike sharing program in the world. Vélib’ can be considered very successful in terms of popularity among the population and tourists (from 50 thousand to 150 thousand daily trips), however, about 80% of the original 20,600 bicycles were destroyed or stolen.

Bill Gates has established a $1 billion fund for the development of green technologies

The richest people on the planet are showing concern about environmental issues. Thus, in December 2016, on the initiative of American billionaire Bill Gates, the Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund was created. His goal: invest more than a billion dollars in new clean energy technologies to combat global warming.

Financial donors were: Jeff Bezos, founder and boss of Amazon, philanthropist George Soros, Richard Branson, founder Virgin Group and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO Facebook.

We must support researchers working on global warming. Government investment is not enough, says Bill Gates. “I am optimistic that we will see technological breakthroughs.”

To summarize, let’s ask ourselves the question: what is most important in solving any problem? Answer: don't turn a blind eye to it. We may not notice the harm from the greenhouse effect, but future generations will definitely notice it. Therefore, raising environmental awareness is important factor in saving our planet.

Epigraph: “No matter what they tell you, it’s about money” (Todd’s principle)

Warning: what the planet Venus has to do with it will become clear closer to the end.

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 blocks infrared (heat) rays, preventing them from scattering into space. This leads to the climate of planet Earth becoming warmer. If you don't shorten these greenhouse emissions, then the glaciers will melt, the world ocean will rise, flooding part of the continents, unbearable heat will fall on the remaining land, in short: everyone will die.

Business process: a number of protocols are signed at the international level that limit CO2 emissions with certain quotas and reduction obligations. Those entities that have surplus allowances can (ATTENTION!) sell these allowances to those entities that burn so much that they fall short of their CO2 emission allowances. And an international fund is being created to finance 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 character in the fight against CO2, laureate Nobel Prize world 2007 for this fight) increased his personal fortune from $2 million to approximately $100 million.
The volume of trade in CO2 quotas reached $120 billion by 2010, and continues to grow rapidly. This is what it truly 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 the greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, 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 US Academy of Sciences Frederick 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 thousand American scientists signed the petition. They agree with Seitz and believe that the agreement* and the trends behind it are a genuine 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 about global warming”:
“As a result of a well-organized international political campaign, the leading countries of the world signed the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for reducing emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere, and above all the main one - carbon dioxide. This protocol is based on the erroneous assumption that these gases supposedly lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect and a significant warming of the Earth’s climate.”

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

And we will try to objectively understand the matter of climate change and the man-made factor - greenhouse gases (in particular, carbon dioxide - CO2, around which the Kyoto Protocol machine revolves). It’s not Buddhas who 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 are it caused by?
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 significant quantities in the atmosphere?
Answer: These are 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, not H2O, but CO2 became the greenhouse hero of the Kyoto Protocol?

There is no clear physical explanation for this political phenomenon.
But there is a clear economic explanation.
Attempt to announce global struggle with emissions of water vapor would look like idiocy, and even propaganda on TV would not help. It is known that about a cubic kilometer of water per minute evaporates from the surface of the world's oceans. That's a billion tons (gigaton). This transfers 2.26*10^12 MJ (mega-joules) of energy 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 scam with H2O emission quotas would not have worked.

Regulating CO2 emissions is a different matter. 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 arguments to a 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, CO2 concentration increased from 0.02 to 0.04 percent.
- This increased the greenhouse effect. As a result, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by 0.74 degrees Celsius since the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., from the beginning intensive combustion fossil fuels – coal, oil and natural gas).
- If CO2 emissions (carbon emissions) are not reduced, the temperature may rise by about 6 degrees by the end of the 21st century.
- Next - see thrillers about a thermal apocalypse with floods and fires.

Let's look at this and ask the question: before our civilization, why did global warming occur after the ice ages that occurred on planet Earth with some regularity over a billion years? And a more local question: why did small warmings occur after minor glaciations in an already historical period, but before machine civilization. Fine famous example: In the 10th century, Vikings traveling from Iceland to the west discovered Greenland and Newfoundland. These were territories with a temperate-warm climate, and grapes even grew in Newfoundland. Currently, both there and there are tundra and glaciers. But the 10th century was marked by warming (historians call it the “medieval climatic optimum”). And the warming did not occur without industrial CO2 emissions.

The conclusion is obvious, but the question of the role of CO2 requires additional remark. Although all prehistoric warmings occurred without human intervention, CO2 concentrations then increased. This is evidenced by geological samples. And to this there is a well-founded scientific theory, according to which the increase in CO2 concentration 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 caused by completely different factors.

There is a powerful regular factor: the flow of radiant energy from the Sun. He, in a complicated way periodic law depends on:
1) Solar activity (long-period fluctuations in the intensity of the glow), of which we can name the Gleisberg, Suess, and Hallstat cycles (the duration of which, respectively: approximately 100, approximately 200, and approximately 2300 years).
2) The orbital position of the Earth - periodic changes in the distance between the Sun and the Earth, and changes in illumination angles 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 falls of large asteroids. They cause emissions of fine dust, which remains in the air for a long time. upper layers atmosphere and shield sunlight. This mechanism, on a relatively small time scale, worked in 1816 (the so-called year without summer) after the Tambora eruption. Calculations of the possible depth of cooling are known by the so-called. "nuclear winter models".

These factors actually determine the Earth's climate, in particular the average temperature. Now let's figure out what happens to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here you can resort to a simple experiment physical model. We will need:
1) Ice bucket (or refrigerator).
2) Bucket with hot water(moderately hot, no extreme).
3) Two bottles of sparkling water (you can use Borzhom, Fanta, Cola, and even champagne).
Place the first bottle in the cold and the second in the heat.
We're waiting for an hour.
Next, open both bottles and visually evaluate the difference.
CO2 bubbles will lazily emerge from the first bottle, and a foam fountain will likely emerge from the second.
Explanation: The solubility of a gas (including CO2) is inversely proportional to temperature.

The world's oceans are a kind of bottle containing 1.35 billion cubic kilometers of mineralized water (or, in mass units: 1.35 billion gigatons). A number of gases are dissolved in water.
In particular, the mass of CO2 dissolved in the ocean exceeds 100 thousand 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 atmospheric CO2 concentration is a consequence (not a cause) of global warming. We can say that this addition of CO2 will enhance the greenhouse effect, creating a secondary factor of global warming. But such a contribution is very insignificant compared to the primary factor (the increase in the flow of radiant energy from the Sun). If we discuss the secondary factor of the greenhouse effect, then we must consider the contribution not of CO2, but of H2O, the predominant greenhouse gas (see above). As temperature rises, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere increases, which means it traps a larger share of thermal radiation from the Earth's surface. The “water” greenhouse process has a downside, but more on that later.

Now let's return to CO2 and evaluate the scale of the technogenic (anthropogenic) factor in the cycle of this gas.
So: the atmosphere now contains 2000 gigatons of CO2, and this amount completes the cycle in about 4 years. 500 gigatons of CO2 per year enters the atmosphere through processes of release from the ocean and processes of decomposition of organic matter in the biosphere. The same amount - 500 gigatons of CO2 per year - is bound in the process of photosynthesis.
Industry (as mentioned) emits 30 gigatons of CO2 per year.
When these 30 gigatons are indicated after 500 gigatons of the biological cycle, this “contribution of the “anthropogenic factor to carbon emissions” no longer looks impressive.
However, as stated above, CO2 is not the cause of global warming in any case.

Like this: it somehow turns out boring. The CO2 greenhouse theme has shrunk, and there is no intrigue.
Let's have some fun. Let's imagine that humanity will uncontrollably burn carbon and hydrocarbon fuels, and will quickly burn all its fossil reserves. Moreover, against the backdrop 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, since there was a period in the history of the Earth when almost all of the CO2 was in the atmosphere, which is now accumulated in fossil fuels. Welcome to the Carboniferous Period Paleozoic era. Then, approximately 330 million years ago, after a long ice age global warming has arrived. The average temperature of the Earth has risen to 20 Celsius (5 degrees higher 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. Band tropical climate expanded. Plants, due to high temperature and humidity, and high concentrations of CO2, quickly produced biomass through photosynthesis. This is how CO2 was utilized, which then, during geological processes, transformed from biomass to coal, oil and natural gas. By the way: many classes of plants and animals (in particular land animals) that exist now developed precisely then. In short: a celebration of life spanning 30 million years or so. None global flood or thermal apocalypse. Then, due to a change in the solar factor, a new glaciation came.

But what if solar factor unchanged at the end of the Carboniferous period? 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 time for a catastrophe to occur, if it were even possible under the greenhouse scenario. Let us note that apologists for the idea of the Kyoto Protocol threaten disaster by the end of the 21st century (!). What millions of years?
The impossibility of such a disaster scenario is due to the previously noted feature of the “water” greenhouse process. It has a downside. Although in the lower atmosphere H2O acts as a warming greenhouse gas, in the upper atmosphere (particularly the very cold stratosphere) its role changes. Water vapor forms clouds of small ice crystals that are highly reflective. These clouds screen sunlight more effectively even than microparticles volcanic ash(see Tambora eruption, “year without sun”). With a high concentration of H2O in the lower layers of the atmosphere, it is transferred to the upper layers, and the area of such clouds – screens, reducing 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 reserves of fossil fuels, and the CO2 content in the atmosphere rises to the late Paleozoic level, this will still not lead to a disaster. So the theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based is pseudoscientific from all sides.

Additionally, this protocol appears to rely on fake measurement data. So:
“Climategate” is a hacker discovery by some guys who hacked into the server of the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia, and discovered the most interesting correspondence from the director of the Climate Research Unit, CRU. She showed that the rationale for the Kyoto Protocol contained climate falsifications going back about 20 years.
Here we could 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 and the mathematical model that describes the rise in temperature due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere come from? Let's try to figure this out.

Let's roll back 50 years into the past, into the “golden decades of astronautics.”
When the unmanned Mariner 5 spacecraft explored the atmosphere of Venus in 1967, scientists were very surprised heat and pressure.
Venus in the sense of planetology is the sister of the Earth (close in size, similar in 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 into space as much heat as it receives from the Sun. Thermal radiation of a body (and in particular a planet) is proportional to absolute temperature to the fourth power.
From this, the temperature on Venus could be roughly estimated at 343 degrees Kelvin, or 70 Celsius (55 degrees higher than the average on Earth).
But Mariner 5 discovered a temperature of 460 Celsius on Venus and a pressure of 90 atmospheres.
A theory soon emerged to explain how this happened. 4 billion years ago, Venus was not particularly different from the Earth at the same time (Archean Era), but the temperature on Venus was about 55 degrees higher. This difference was enough to prevent the oceans from forming during a certain period of 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 hot hell!

And, after a mathematical interpretation of the results of the Mariner 5 flight, in 1975, an article by Wallace Broecker, “Climate Change: Are We on the Verge of Sharp Global Warming?” appears in the journal Science, in which for the first time, in the spirit of alarmism, the dangerous technogenic impact on the climate of our planet.
An excellent horror story to intimidate public opinion, and to build a scam for trading quotas for greenhouse gas emissions, raising funds, etc. An important role is played by the distribution of grants - in order to obtain “confirmation in the name of science.” This is how it works, and will continue to work, apparently, for a long time. Public opinion so intimidated that the recent refusal of the US administration from the Paris Protocol caused a storm of mass protests, demonstrations, rallies, pickets, and thrillers in the media.

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

This pseudo-scientific detective story with a model substitution of the Earth - Venus might 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 for January 10, 2018
Or a presentation in Russian - from the network source Liga.net for January 11, 2018
"Famous scientist Stephen Hawking warned that the Earth will become "hot as hell" as a result of global warming. The Daily Mail reports this.
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 planet’s atmosphere “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 journalists) to make a return trip: from an imaginary Venus to real Earth. By the way, travel 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 called CO2, then they would obviously call for not releasing this dangerous creature from the bowels of the Earth.
- Seal the mouths of oil and gas wells.
- Concrete the broken shale layers.
- Close all coal mines and peat quarries.
- And globally switch to nuclear energy, which does not emit CO2.
By the way, it’s a completely realistic project.
At the end of the 20th century, the prosperous French economy supplied 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power plants...
...But we do not hear or see the 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. On the one hand, it’s illogical. On the other hand, this means that it is not a matter of the CO2 threat (which does not exist), but a monetary-fund effect (which exists).
And it is likely that the sponsors of the anti-CO2 project, just like the sponsors of the anti-nuclear project, are those super-corporations that produce hydrocarbon fuels.

2. Of course, on Earth there are man-made ecological problems. The fact that this particular CO2 problem is fictitious does not negate the real problems. For example:
- Pollution of the world's oceans with petroleum products and plastic waste.
- Local pollution of mineral extraction regions.
- Destruction of local ecosystems during logging and soil cultivation.
- Environmentally hazardous methods of mass production of seafood.
…And so on.
But, apparently, at the High International Level it is more profitable to fight fictitious problems based on pseudoscientific theories and false data. So it goes…