Arctic glaciers are rapidly melting, exposing the lands of ancient Daaria. Russia will turn into a swamp

This statement caused great skepticism of the scientist’s colleagues. However, most experts agree that the Arctic could set a new record for minimum sea ice extent this summer. Many facts indicate this.

As you know, last winter and spring earth's atmosphere warmed up to record levels under the combined influence of global warming and a strong El Niño. Satellite measurements of the temperature of the lower troposphere showed huge temperature anomalies:

The Arctic was no exception. According to the Russian weather service, last winter and spring were also record warm there. The National Ice and Snow Agency (NSIDC) confirms this finding. According to their estimates, during four of the five months of this year (January, February, April and May), the minimum sea ice area was observed in the Arctic:

At the same time, in the Northern Hemisphere the snow area is close to a minimum:

Measurements from the Cryosat-2 satellite show that the volume sea ​​ice in the Arctic is approaching a record low:

A comparison of ice thickness with previous years suggests that the ice has thinned the most on the American side of the Arctic:

Main reason this - warm weather. In a press release, NCDIC said that on the northern tip of Alaska, the city of Barrow is experiencing its earliest snow melt in 78 years of records this spring (May 20). Usually the snow there begins to melt at the end of June - beginning of July, but this year the snowmelt began at a record early dates- May 13. This is 10 days earlier than the previous record in 2002. About the small thickness of the ice, in Siberian seas in early June, compared to the norm, is also reported in Russian sources.

The small thickness of Arctic ice allows this year to easily hold first place in area compared to other years for many weeks in a row, even despite cold weather V last days(red bold line):

The only question that remains is how historic it will become. this summer in the Arctic based on the total. At the same time, another question is brewing: will the melting of Arctic ice bring more benefit or harm to civilization? On the one hand, the loss of ice will lead to an increase in maritime traffic in the Arctic Ocean. The development of natural mineral resources huge region of the planet. Thus, Russia is currently building three of the largest nuclear icebreakers in the world (project 22220). The first of them (“Arctic”) should be launched in the coming days. These steel giants are several tens of percent heavier and more powerful than any icebreakers built in the USSR in the 20th century:

RIAN

On the other hand, warming in the Arctic and melting ice will lead to the extinction of Arctic animals and plants, as well as to the swamping of vast areas.

According to satellite imagery, the amount of “summer” ice remaining in the surrounding area North Pole V warm months, has been declining consistently since 1979. Constructed from this information computer models allow us to make a forecast for the future: in the summer of 2030, for the first time in millennia, the Arctic will melt completely.

However, the results of 2007 surprised even inveterate pessimists: the area of ​​ice in the summer decreased much more than could be expected. By last September, no more than 4.28 million square meters remained in the Arctic. km of ice, a full 23% below the minimum record set a year earlier.

Meanwhile, a group of American scientists led by Mark Serreze showed that the acceleration of the melting of Arctic ice is growing so quickly that the “point of no return” has already been passed: it is not possible to stop the process. By late summer 2008, scientists were anxiously watching to see whether any ice would remain. At the end of September, the ice surface area was 4.67 million square meters. km. Optimists might say that the Arctic has overcome the most apocalyptic forecasts, gradually recovering. But Serrese and his colleagues are not inclined to think so.

“If you look at the data for the last 5 years,” the scientist says, “you will immediately notice how the melting is increasing.” In 2008, its acceleration became higher than in 2007, but the highest “results” were recorded in 2002 and 2005. What mechanism leads to this acceleration?

During the summer, the bright shiny melted ice is replaced by dark ocean water which absorbs heat better sun rays. And when the Arctic winter comes, the heated ocean releases its accumulated heat, preventing the ice cover from fully recovering. Having studied temperature data at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, Serreze discovered how great the effect of this heat transfer is: winter temperature over areas where the melting intensity was particularly high, in the last 4 years it was 5 degrees higher than the average for the entire history of observations.

Such an acceleration, according to Serreze, has until now been delayed 20 years into the future. “Computer simulations,” he says, “are good at showing what’s happening, but in reality it happens much faster.” And these changes may be irreversible: more and more warming of the polar regions leads to more and more melting, which, in turn, accelerates the heating even more. And when the ice finally melts, the consequences will be truly global.

“The Arctic is a region where the air from all over the world cools down. northern hemisphere, Serreze explains, due to melting local ice The entire pattern of ocean currents, which largely determine the climate of the hemisphere, may completely change.” The consequences of this are already being felt in the northern part of America and northern Siberia.

If the ice in the Arctic melts, we will die. Not right away, of course, and perhaps not all. But it will be a long and painful death. First for animals, birds, fish, and then for people. Somehow it turns out that a person, although he is not strong, like, say, polar bear or a whale, but is able to survive in different conditions. Even in dirty ones. Especially to themselves.

Much has been written about the fact that Arctic ice is under threat. scientific works and articles. For those who don’t know yet, let me explain, due to global warming permafrost gradually began to transform into temporary permafrost. That is, ice floes that never melted for last couple decades began to actively decrease in size.

“Science has confirmed that since the 1980s total mass Arctic ice has decreased by 70%. In September 2012 the area ice cap has reached its minimum size since the start of observations. It has decreased to three and a half thousand square kilometers. True, already in 2013, winter ice did not melt so quickly and retained an area of ​​\u200b\u200bfive thousand square kilometers. However, this fact does not warn the Arctic and its inhabitants from a large-scale catastrophe.”

It is also worth noting that:

“a couple of years ago, in 2011, Norwegian scientists installed a special sonar at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean. As a result of the measurements, it turned out that there were no traces of thick ice floes from the 1990s. The ice is becoming thinner and more fragile. There is also a reduction in the number many summer ice. Its thickness from the once usual average of 2.5 meters has decreased to 1 meter, and somewhere down to 80 centimeters.”

As a result, many animals suffer. For example, due to the melting of the ice surface, polar bears have to move to the shore ahead of time in order to at least eat something. On a larger scale, we can already say that Most of the Arctic flora may die due to sudden climate change..

This course of events has a very ambiguous effect on the reaction modern man. On the one hand, scientists and advocacy organizations environment trying to cause a stir in society. Naturally on the topic of What does melting glaciers threaten us with? and how dangerous it is. On the other side - richest countries and companies around the world are beginning to divide the Arctic territory in order to deflate from it discovered oil reserves. As a result, the following picture emerges.

Humanity is in danger of dying due to melting ice. I'm deliberately not talking about reindeer, stoats and whales, because we care even less about them than about ourselves. I'm talking about Man here.

The fact is that the Arctic, due to its eternal white cap of snow, serves as an excellent reflector sunlight. Thanks to such a “shield” Arctic ice and snow provide the planet with protection from overheating, allow the Earth to maintain a stable climate. But just imagine what will happen if the snow melts at the North Pole? Then the ice will turn into a solid ocean, and the sun will no longer be able to reflect in it, it will begin to warm it up. Because of this change in the “picture,” there will be no need to talk about any predictable and stable climate on the planet.

And what will we get after this?

Firstly, sea ​​levels will rise, researchers say - not by much, but it will still increase, and these are floods. Secondly, weather conditions around the world will worsen, which will lead to an inevitable increase in mortality. And finally, scientists make disappointing predictions that due to new surges weather conditions up to 100 million people will die by 2030. From lack fresh water, food and drought. And these are just preliminary forecasts.

But do we think about this today? Is this what interests you and me today? No, for the most part humanity has long lived by inertia. Let's admit that we don’t care what happens to the Arctic. Yes, we don’t even care about the situation of the pensioner living in the next apartment, what kind of things are there “ polar bears"and the Arctic Circle?!

Of course there is "madmen" trying to resist the threat of our extinction. This is just the same scientists who explore the world and its behavior. Also this organizations type Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace, which rather protect animals from people and try to stop the entry of human technology into the annals protected areas. And also this oil companies, who, on the contrary, want to quickly enter those same Arctic “annals” so that pump up oil and gas and also in this way “help” humanity.

« You need to fill the tank of your credit car with something, right?? »

And then, willy-nilly, we come back again to the North Arctic Ocean . For reference:

“The Arctic contains a colossal amount of undeveloped energy resources - oil and gas. According to the US Geological Survey, oil reserves in the Arctic (both offshore and onshore) amount to 90 billion barrels. According to British Petroleum, the world consumes over 32 billion barrels of oil annually. Thus, given the existing demand for oil, Arctic reserves will last for 3 years.» (based on Wikipedia)

And yet major oil workers Denmark, Norway, the USA and Russia are very determined. Despite the lack of appropriate equipment for hydrocarbon production in the North, they came to the Arctic, divided hundreds of kilometers of ice and started their “business”. But why? For the sake of three years supplying the world with petroleum fuel? It is unlikely that you will earn much from this.

"prey natural resources in the Arctic is extremely complex and dangerous from an environmental point of view. In the harsh climate of the Arctic, the likelihood emergency situations increases significantly. The ability to eliminate the consequences of an oil spill, as well as its effectiveness, are complicated by numerous storms with high waves, thick fog and many meters of ice. If an accident occurs during the polar night, which lasts here for several months, then work to eliminate the consequences will have to be carried out in the dark, almost at random. Another danger is icebergs, a collision with which can be fatal for an oil production platform.”(Wikipedia)

Everything suggests that the risks of companies invading the Arctic with their “drilling rigs” are unjustified. But how to make money on “black gold” in the far north, oil workers probably think - “the saviors of humanity for three years”?

And here a special question is raised, at least by the fact that the funds to be spent on equipment, capable of coping with permafrost conditions during oil production in the Arctic will cost the “tycoons” quite a lot. And since rich people are determined to earn and not spend, it can be assumed that They are unlikely to be puzzled by supernova technology. They will take what they already have. Respectively, risks of oil spills in the Arctic will rise to its maximum. After all they need money not reputation they need oil, not polar bears.

What environmentalists around the world are so worried about is complete absence technologies that can cope with oil spills in climatic features Arctic. So expert John Calder in his report “Arctic Oil and Gas” says that “removing oil spills from ice-covered areas is very difficult and dangerous.”

Is it worth remembering here? terrible story 2010 in the USA when after the explosion oil platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico rescuers could not stop the oil flow for 152 days!? During this period, American waters were replenished five million barrels of oil, And covered an area of ​​75 thousand square kilometers with an oil slick. Is it worth remembering this in order to feel all the danger awaiting the Arctic shelves?

At the same time, everyone must understand that The Gulf of Mexico is climatically located much more more favorable conditions far north. Accordingly, avoid preventing an oil breakthrough disaster in the Arctic will be much more difficult, and maybe even - impossible. The consequences will lead to the death of tens, hundreds of mammals, fish, birds, contamination of the ocean, and, of course, harm humans.

I'll explain why. On my own oil, or rather - its burning causes irreparable damage to our ecology, causes the melting of glaciers. This is the “water cycle in nature.” Therefore, we can say with confidence, that in accelerating the process of destruction of humanity active participation oil companies also accept.

However, would you agree that pumping up enough oil for only 3 years, and at the same time reducing the planet’s population by a hundred million people in 15 years due to melted ice floes, seems somehow disproportionate?

Although, perhaps, oil workers believe that it is better this way, because Anthropogenic impact on climate is recognized as the key reason for the disappearance of glaciers. That is, oddly enough, you and I are to blame for the melting of the Arctic. Well, and oil concerns, of course. But if the population on the planet decreases, then the glaciers may return to their place, and the pumped-up oil will last longer.

By the way, some experts find pros is that if the entire North Pole melts like ice cream. The most important thing is the ocean, on which ships from Asia to Europe and America and vice versa can now safely sail, and this will allow expand shopping areas And will have a positive impact on the economies of developing countries, including Russia. The more than once mentioned oil magnates are also interested in the melting of glaciers, because the absence of ice will facilitate hydrocarbon production conditions. True, whether they will still remain in the Arctic deposits after 15-20 years is unknown.

About the danger that threatens arctic ice, a lot has been said today. Conducted large number actions around the world in the name of preserving nature at the North Pole. Millions of signatures have already been collected from people, including famous people, calling to save the Arctic Circle from extinction...

The safety of oil developments in the Arctic region is also discussed. Mainly, of course, on the part of oil concerns, which still care about their reputation. But in general, little is said about the fact that extracting oil in the far north is harmless, because there is nothing. Because everything indicates that it is impossible.

Now tell me, for the umpteenth time we are seeing two rivals enter the “ring” - money and the environment? And it’s always clear to everyone how the game will end. You can safely place your bets. You definitely won't lose.

The unlucky ones in this story are several animal populations, including very rare ones, birds and fish. Also, the tundra, which will be overgrown with forest due to warming, will also be unlucky; residents of the far north will also have to adapt to the new conditions of a “melted region” with collapsed houses. They will have no other choice. Unless slowly dying out in an embrace with polar bears and deer.

Well, if the ice finally melts, then tens of millions of people threaten to disappear along with it. But this is only if the ice melts.

According to scientists, the Arctic has set an anti-record for the rate of ice loss. For 2016 total area Arctic glaciers have decreased to 4.14 million square meters. km. In 1979 average area glaciers in the Arctic summer period amounted to 7.5 million sq. kilometers. Over the past 30 years, there has been a regular loss of ice cover in northern latitudes.

Greenland is losing 18 billion tons of ice per year more than previously thought. This is reported by a new study that used GPS satellites. Instead of losing an average of 250 billion tons of ice per year from 2003 to 2013,

Greenland is “losing weight” by 268 billion tons, says one of the authors of the study, Michael Beavis from Ohio State University (USA). The difference in measurements is about 7%. The Empire State Building weighs 330 thousand tons, which means 18 billion tons - that’s almost 55 thousand of these 102-story skyscrapers. But overall, it’s “a very small percentage. “I don’t think this will change the overall picture,” says study co-author Beata Xato from the State University of New York at Buffalo (USA).

Additional ice loss adds small quantity- 0.4 mm per decade - to global sea level rise. In total, Greenland's melting adds 0.54 mm per decade to global sea levels.

Most measurements of the ice cover in Greenland and Antarctica are made by satellites, which record changes in ice cover density and use computer simulations to calculate weight lost ice. But the problem is that when ice sheets melt, the soil rises up to take the place of the melted ice. The phenomenon occurs both instantly and lasts for centuries.

The rock that rises to replace the ice is recorded by satellite as part of the ice sheet. Thus, the data on the amount of ice does not correspond to reality. New measurements made by GPS satellites and other means take this process into account. Therefore, their observations are more accurate.

Scientists examined glaciers that drift from Greenland on the western side. The video shows how part of the Rink glacier on the coast of western Greenland has cracked.

Images were acquired using a digital mapping system (DMS), a digital camera high resolution, which was attached to the bottom of the aircraft. It receives images throughout the flight. These images help researchers better analyze data obtained using other tools.

The data collected during the IceBridge campaign, which began eight years ago, has contributed to a number of discoveries. Under the snow, scientists recorded the canyon and observed aquifer. The researchers assessed the extent of frozen and unfrozen areas on the lower part of the ice sheet, and also monitored changes in the thickness of Arctic sea ice.

The IceBridge project is intended to continue the mission of polar measurements from ICESat satellites, which ended in 2009. The receiver satellites are scheduled to be launched into orbit in 2018.
http://earth-chronicles.ru/news/2016-09-24-96411

And here Daariya showed up!

The Franz Josef Archipelago - the remains of a Hyperborean metropolis - corresponds to a position on one of the four big islands Daariya, close to Novaya Zemlya.
The metropolis can be viewed here:
https://www.google.ru/maps/@80.5478 711,52.3631764,64098m/data=!3m1!1e3
That is, the islands are only the upper part, raised hundreds of meters relative to the plains of Daariya.
However, over the past few years there has been intensive melting of glaciers on the Franz Josef Islands - and it is no longer possible to hide the obvious:
the remains of structures are beginning to melt https://www.google.ru/maps/@80.1215 269,47.9826999,131m/data=!3m1!1e3

This is Bell Island, the remains of the Gigalithic Pyramid, and at the same time a castle city.

Another photo:

Mabel Island

Walled City of Cape Flora, Northbrook Island

Incomprehensible technological structures on Cape Flora, below the castle-fortress.

Two castle-fortresses on the island of Champa, famous for its stone cannonballs, were destroyed, apparently by these very shells:
Moreover, on some cores one can discern certain patterns and runic inscriptions (probably like “To Berlin!”)).

15/03/2012

This winter, for the first time in 30 years, the Black Sea froze and for the first time in 80 years, the canals of Venice were covered with ice. Negative temperatures We were in Iraq and northern Africa. At the beginning of March this year, scientists found out why the winter turned out to be so harsh - it’s all to blame global warming, namely, the melting of ice in the Arctic.

R Head of the climate program WWF - World Fund wildlife- Alexey KOKORIN explained to “City 812” when the Arctic will finally melt.

Hot spot

IN last time A number of scientists have predicted that the ice in the Arctic will melt within fifty years. How reasonable are such forecasts?
- Such forecasts are quite reasonable, but often there is no complete understanding of what they are talking about we're talking about. These forecasts were calculated using climate models that best reflect the current state of ice in the Arctic. According to them, it turns out that there will be no ice in the Arctic around 2060, but - this means ice at the end of September, summer ice. At the end of September - yes, it will not be there at all.

- And in winter?
- In winter, ice will remain and cover the vast majority of the Arctic.

- Does he recover so quickly?
- Yes, sure. Let's say the ice will be zero on September 25, but by November 1 half of the Arctic will be covered thin ice. But this is a long-term prospect. As for the shorter term, say, 20 years, there is clearly an overlap of a general trend towards a decrease in the amount of ice and the cyclical processes that occur in the Arctic. This means climate instability: in some years there is really very little ice, as was the case in 2007 or now, in 2011. But in 2014 there will be significantly more ice even in summer. In 20 years, all this will lead to the formation of icebergs.

- How fast is the ice melting now?
- There is evidence that New Earth lost 250 sq. kilometers of territory for recent years 20. Ice losses are also very high in Greenland. Last year, Greenland lost so much ice that the amount of fresh water is half the flow of all Siberian rivers. The river flow is approximately 1800 cubic kilometers. And Greenland lost 1000. On the one hand, these are quite powerful processes. On the other hand, they are quite slow and unstable. To say that soon it will be possible to freely navigate the Northern Sea Route is very naive. In the next twenty years, refusal nuclear icebreakers completely impossible. In some years, of course, it will be possible to navigate without icebreaker support, but in most cases it will not be possible. Moreover, this is a somewhat unpredictable process. I can predict that in the next two years - 2012 and 2013 - the ice conditions will be much more severe than in 2011 and 2007. But about the same as in 2009, for example.

But there is more side effects this melting is very serious. In summer, there is much less land-locked ice - this is the ice that covers the shore. And when there is open water - in summer, in autumn - without ice, storms very quickly erode the coast. There are places where the coast recedes several meters per year.

- Where is this?
- Mainly in the eastern part of the Arctic - these are the East Siberian and Chukchi seas. There are fewer in the western part, because there were a lot there before open water, and what could be blurred is already blurred. According to rough estimates, every year Russia loses 30 square meters. kilometers of territory. Of course, the shores always eroded. But now this process has intensified. Maybe Russia used to lose 10 square meters. kilometers per year.

- Why is this happening?
- Now the process has intensified for two reasons: Ice protects the coast worse, and there are more storms because there is more open water. When the ocean is covered with ice, there can be no storm.

- Has winter ice in the Arctic become thinner?
- Yes, the total thickness of the ice has become much smaller. Because there is less multi-year ice. And if previously it was not uncommon to find ice 1.5 - 2 meters thick in the Arctic and in the central part, now ice is about 80 cm, 1 meter - this is the ice of last winter.

- A maximum thickness which?
- The maximum is when one layer of ice runs over another - maybe 4 meters. But this is already exotic, usually 2 - 2.5 meters. Now there is little such ice, and especially little in the Russian Arctic, all exclusively in the Canadian sector.

- Why?
- This is the structure of the flow. Along the Russian Arctic, the current is dominant, from Chukotka to Greenland. Remember how Nansen walked to the North Pole. He understood how this current was moving, roughly speaking, he stuck the ship into the ice in the East Siberian Sea area and hoped that it would be carried just over the North Pole. Well, he almost missed it, he had to ski a little, but he didn’t go. But the idea was great!

Closer to Canada there is no current, there is a Beaufort top. There the ice seems to be spinning in one place, and fresh water accumulates there. Therefore, when they say that the ocean is desalinating due to river runoff, due to the melting of ice, they are not saying entirely correctly - it is primarily desalinating because of this top.

- What kind of top is this?
- This is a circular current in a clockwise direction. Its intensity varies and is subject to natural cyclicity. When it gets stronger, there is more ice in the Arctic because this top grabs large territory. When it weakens, there is less ice. Now, by the way, this is expressed in cold winter in Europe and Moscow in early February, because there was a change in the trend of this top. It grew and grew, and now it is decreasing. And it turns out that we have a lot of ice in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, while the Barents and Kara Seas, on the contrary, are free. And since they are free, an area is formed there low pressure, and the Arctic air goes through the Urals to Moscow and to Europe, and there frosts are minus 15. For us, these frosts are quite familiar, but when in Poland and Romania it was 20 - 25 minutes, people died there.

- It turns out that because the ice is melting, it is getting colder?
- The ice is simultaneously shrinking and pulsating. And if such is the pulsation phase that there is little ice in the Barents and Kara Seas, then this is a prerequisite for cold temperature in Europe.

Bangkok will flood, but St. Petersburg will not

- By 2060, when the ice melts in the summer, which areas will be under water?
- You know, the height of the flooding almost does not depend on the melting of ice in the Arctic; the rise will be small, a maximum of 30 - 40 centimeters. The effect of coastal erosion is much more dangerous. And besides our shores, many lighthouses are washed away along the Northern Sea Route. We have about 450 of them, and all of them have radioactive batteries.

- So why is the Arctic warming and melting?
- This is the general trend of anthropogenic impact on the climate.

- So basically the person is to blame?
- Basically, yes, but in no case should we write off natural fluctuations. And a person acts in two directions. When it pollutes the atmosphere with dust and aerosol, this is in the direction of cooling. And when the emissions greenhouse gases- towards warming. But greenhouse gas emissions predominate, so the total human actions are in the direction of warming.

This effect appears to be negligible. They say: the temperature on the planet has increased by a degree. So this is average temperature around the hospital. The temperature rose a little, but the buildup became much stronger. We managed to raise the temperature by less than a degree, and climate system- 10 degrees.

- Why does the temperature rise faster at the poles?
- The circulation of the atmosphere and ocean is designed in such a way that the temperature increase at the poles is several times greater. That is, half a degree at the equator is one and a half degrees in Moscow (what we see now) - 3.5 degrees in Yakutia and 5 degrees in the North Pole area. That is, the difference is 10 times. Because of such differences, the penetration of cold air from the Arctic or hot air from the south has become more frequent. That's where it comes from warm december and cold February: invasions alternate. Judging by forecasts, this will continue to be the case, because humans will only be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a few decades.

- Can he really?
- Most emissions come from burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas. And it has long been intuitively clear to everyone that one day we will have to switch to alternative sources - somewhere wind, somewhere solar, somewhere biofuel, somewhere thermal energy. The fact that humanity will overcome this problem is certain. Another question is when and how many losses we will suffer along the way.

European states are seriously thinking about reducing emissions, and have even achieved this. And this is not so much the result of caring about the climate as the result of working to increase energy efficiency and energy saving. Everything we do to improve energy efficiency and save energy, we automatically do for the climate.

- And in Russia?
- You yourself know that we have very good dreams, directives, instructions. But everything is done 3 times slower than planned. Here we have heat losses during transportation of 35 - 50%, and in Europe - 5 - 10%. We first need to remove the boiler rooms, introduce heat meters, and reform the heating system. We have made calculations - if we do what we want to do, our energy efficiency in 2030 will increase 4 times. And by 2050 - 6 times. And our emissions will no longer grow. It is necessary to take measures in industry, to introduce fees for excess CO2 emissions. We seem to know what to do. You just need to explain to the government: you yourself have planned a 40% reduction in the energy intensity of the economy. So do it! Otherwise, we will have to slam the window to Europe opened by Peter.

- If we do everything so slowly, then we might not make it in time?
- With the ideas that scientists now have, the word “catastrophe” is not even uttered. The question of the survival of a planet, continent, and so on does not arise at all, because there are physical mechanisms that counteract this. Let's say you can't increase greenhouse effect 2 times, even if greenhouse gases increase 2 times. Or there may be a 5 degree increase in average global temperature, but not a 10 degree increase. But many small islands in Pacific Ocean, for example, it will simply flood. Large number Low-lying cities, such as Shanghai and Bangkok, will also be flooded. If they say that to save Venice, 20 billion euros are needed, then I think they won’t simply save Shanghai - Venice is small.

- What will flood in Russia? Petersburg?
- There are almost no such cities in Russia. St. Petersburg is in a dangerous situation, but now there is a dam. On December 25, the dam operated for the first time and reduced the flood level. The gates were closed - and in the end the effect was good, the money was not wasted.

There is a second problem besides flooding. Fresh water shortages are expected. But again, not here, but in Asia, Africa, the Mediterranean. Russia finds itself a little on the sidelines, which apparently explains some of the relaxation of our politicians.

- Where will the fresh water disappear?
- There will be a redistribution of precipitation. That is, there will be no less precipitation on Earth, but, say, more will fall in Siberia, and in Central Asia- less. And then we will have to switch to drip irrigation, as in Israel. And if we look at China's policy, they are already very concerned about whether they will have a shortage of fresh water. They are now building reservoirs for everyone large rivers, which flow from China. They also want to build a dam on the Amur. Do you think they need electricity? They can produce it differently. They need water, they need control over the flow of the Amur River. And the fact that this will lead to the death of the fish... not all of them, will remain something at the level of crucian carp. But there will be no more sturgeon. Therefore, the Wildlife Foundation is categorically against the construction of hydroelectric power stations both on the Amur and on the Shinka River - the Russian people and nature absolutely do not need this, Chinese industry needs it.

Bears need to be saved. And seals

- Are serious climate changes currently observed in Russia?
- Certainly. But you know what the problem is: inside the Moscow Ring Road they show up little, but inside the Kremlin - not at all! What we see - either heat or cold - is complete nonsense compared to what is happening in the Arctic, Chukotka or the north Western Siberia. There, snowstorms have become more frequent and stronger, and this is a big obstacle for any transport, and for economic activity. And due to the fact that the ice melts early and very quickly in the East Siberian and Chukchi Seas, it turns out that polar bears remain on the shore and do not have time to leave with the ice. And, of course, they have some food nearby - walruses, for example - but it’s easier to go to the trash heap, to the villages. And then there is a conflict between a bear and a person, the bears die. Often a person is simply defending himself, but he has no rubber bullets and nothing to scare off the bear. And he shoots with regular ones. And the wounded animal can only be finished off.

- How does warming threaten Siberia, where there is permafrost?
- The permafrost is melting, and this is a very uneven process. And if you suddenly have an ice lens under your house, then this serious problem. Because if previously the permafrost thawed a meter, and the lens, say, at a depth of 1.3 meters, you were not afraid. Once it melts to 1.3 meters, the entire lens immediately melts and the house collapses.

- And what can you do about it - come to terms with it?
- It is necessary to examine each object, and either carry dangerous objects or throw them. In our Arctic now lives 3 times fewer people than with Soviet power. And only this saves. The house collapsed - we moved to the next one. There is as much free housing as you like.

- So maybe everything will eventually collapse if it’s built on permafrost?
- No, everything will not collapse. It collapses where the soil is loose and at the same time contains ice in certain quantities. The lens is just a glaring case. If there are just inclusions of ice, it’s not so scary. And it also depends on what kind of house it is. If it is made of logs, it will simply warp, and if it is made of stone, it will collapse. These are all obvious things, and it is clear how to deal with them - build on posts, on deep piles. Everything can be overcome, but it requires money and effort, and they are not always enough in our country.

- What will happen to polar bears when the ice melts in 2060?
- There are different opinions here. There are quite panicky ones - that the bears will die. But I would not adhere to this opinion, because there are known places where bears live without ice in the summer - part of Hudson Bay, for example. Of course, the number of bears will fall, but if they are not killed, then the probability that half or a third of the population will survive is very high. Therefore, there is something to fight for.

- What about other Arctic monasteries?
- There is, for example, the Taganay park in the Urals, and there are tundras there. So these tundras, unfortunately, are doomed. It is impossible for them to escape - they will be overgrown with forests because it is getting warmer. There is no chance to save him. Or another example - seals in the White Sea. There is also less ice in the White Sea, including in March-April, when females give birth to pups. And in years when there is very little ice, the cubs die, and die en masse. They, unlike a bear, cannot lie on the shore - there are dogs, wolves, they are defenseless in front of them. So now the question is the survival of the seals there. Theoretically, they could completely disappear in the White Sea in 10 years. It means that part of the population needs to be resettled from there. But where? And how to do this? It's not clear yet.

- Has there already been such warming in the history of the Earth as now, but without human intervention?
- Yes, there has already been maximum warming on Earth. We have it ice age, then interglacial. There were periods - and then there was already a polar bear - say, 100 thousand years ago, when it was warmer than now, and there was no ice in the Arctic in the summer. But in winter there was ice.

- And what were the consequences?
- We don’t really know this, but the polar bear definitely survived this period. True, no one shot at him then.

- Could the Arctic completely melt?
- Conditions under which the Arctic would be without ice are still unknown. I think this is impossible.

- What’s happening in Antarctica - is it melting too?
- There the process is underway, which is fundamentally important for rising sea levels. This is the destruction of the ice shelves of western Antarctica. Ice shelf - it is on top, above the water. And its foot is below sea level, that is, it lies at the bottom. And it doesn’t just melt, it collapses. You've probably seen satellite images showing how an iceberg measuring 30 by 10 kilometers broke off. This gigantic size. And this process is much more serious than the melting of the Arctic or even Greenland. But he cannot go fast, because such volumes of ice cool the ocean, and when the ocean cools a little, the ice stops breaking off for a while. All this applies mainly to the western part of Antarctica. In the eastern part, where they have just drilled to the underwater Lake Vostok, the amount of ice has increased. Yes, it has also become much warmer there, by 10 degrees. This means that instead of minus 50, it has become minus 40 - that is, nothing is melting anyway. And there is more precipitation, so ice accumulates.

- St. Petersburg will somehow feel the melting of the ice - you say that it will not be flooded, but there are probably other dangers?
“They are unlikely to feel the melting of the ice here, as well as the warming - only about one and a half degrees.” But the instability of the weather - yes. Three weeks of warmth, three weeks of frost - St. Petersburg is already feeling these swings. Well, it’s obvious that the dam will come to the rescue of St. Petersburg more and more often. It will probably still have to be strengthened and completed - but not in the next 10 years.
There will be an increase in the groundwater level, and St. Petersburg already stands on a swamp. But this is not Amsterdam, there are not so many basements here, otherwise they would be flooded. Not only St. Petersburg, but also many historical centers in the North-West of Russia - they were built low, next to the water.

And the more warm periods there are in the spring, the more ticks there will be. And in St. Petersburg there is already enough of it. And every effort must be made to explain to children how to behave in the forest at this time. Siberian children already know how to do this.

- Are there any advantages to warming?
- Of course, but there are much fewer of them than minuses. For example, shortening the heating season. But you also need to be able to use this. It is necessary to heat when there is a need, and not when it is written, not according to the calendar, but according to the current situation. We don't know how to do that yet. Then - simplification of shipping in the Arctic. But in conditions of instability of the ice regime, it is not easy to take advantage of this. For example, you can refuse icebreaker insurance only if you have an excellent monitoring system, if you can reliably calculate the weather and your actions.

- Oil producers are probably happy about the warming...
- It will be easier for them to get, of course. But, since everything is unstable in the Arctic, they must be prepared for very difficult ice regime. And in the world there is still no technology - none at all - for eliminating oil spills in ice conditions. And this is a very serious obstacle, so it is better to wait with oil production until such technology is available. Do we need oil with such risks? She will still be very expensive .

Anastasia DMITRIEVA