This conclusion stems from the work of a group of Russian scientists, which was published in the journal Geosciences. The scientific director of the geological direction of the Institute of Oceanology that bears the name of VI PAGES. Shirshov RAS, academician Leopold Lobkovsky.
Leopold Isaevich, to be honest, the very fact of the appearance of such an article looks like a challenge. After all, the theory of global warming is declared almost an axiom. He found the culprit for him—carbon dioxide emissions. More than 100 countries have agreed to reduce them, and “green energy” has become the guiding goal of mankind. And now you and your colleagues are going against conventional wisdom. You risk authority. Here you need the strongest arguments.
Leopold Lobkowski: I stress that we are not alone. Yes, global warming advocates have managed to convince the world community and the governments of many countries that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are the cause of climate change. If we do not reduce, the consequences will be catastrophic: floods in megacities, droughts, poor harvests, famines, epidemics, etc. The only way out is a “green economy”, emission quotas and the list goes on. But in reality, this is the transition of humanity to a new world order, where several countries will establish their own rules of the game, referring to the climate.
But I assure you that there is no unanimity in the scientific community on the causes of warming. Doubts have been raised about the causes of climate change. And such voices are being heard more and more often. For example, the manifesto of the independent international fund Global Climate Intelligence Group “There is no climate emergency” recently appeared, which was signed by more than 1,200 scientists and experts from around the world.
They believe that the climate models on which the climate protocols are based are too flawed and therefore cannot be the basis for fundamental economic and political decisions. And if the conclusions of the climate models are wrong, this can be very costly for humanity.
But more importantly, opponents are not just expressing doubt, they are offering alternative versions of the causes of global climate change. Moreover, these are not anthropogenic factors, but natural. Many of these theories and hypotheses will soon be published in a special issue of Geosciences.
So, your group has offered its version. What is its essence?
Leopold Lobkowski: We draw attention to this fact. Since the beginning of the last century, the average temperature across the planet has remained stable, but, I emphasize, it has been growing very slowly. And then all of a sudden, in a short period of time, in the late 1970s and 1980s, a phase of rapidly rising temperatures began abruptly in the Arctic.
A similar picture, but in the 1990s, was observed in Antarctica, where the temperature suddenly began to rise and the glaciers began to collapse intensively. And since then, the average temperature in two opposite areas of the planet has been growing much more than in all its other regions.
Our opponents do not answer the seemingly obvious question: if there is no industry and no CO2 emissions in the Arctic and Antarctic, why is there the greatest increase in temperature?
Various versions are expressed about this still incomprehensible phenomenon.
Leopold Lobkowski: Yes, but frankly they are not convincing. And what is more important, they do not answer the seemingly obvious question: if there is no industry and no emissions, why is the temperature increase greater? So, we have found the answer: in climate change, the main fault is not man’s, a much more significant contribution was made by nature. More precisely, the strongest earthquakes.
Once upon a time, the eruptions of powerful volcanoes were the cause of long cooling periods on the planet. Huge clouds of ash covered the Earth from solar radiation and the cold began. But how could tremors raise the temperature of the planet? The version, frankly, is very unexpected.
Leopold Lobkowski: In short, the image is like this. We draw attention to several powerful earthquakes that occurred in the interval between 1957 and 1965 in the Aleutian arc region. They generated specific strain waves that propagate in the elastic lithosphere underlying Earth’s highly viscous layer. And they move in a horizontal direction.
It should be remembered here that in the frozen rocks of the Arctic shelf, at depths of tens to hundreds of meters below the ocean floor, large reserves of so-called relict gas hydrates containing methane gas preserved in micropores of ice are concentrated. Then, the deformation waves, propagating in the lithosphere, destroy the micropores of the gas hydrates and release large amounts of methane. Once in the atmosphere, this gas caused a sharp increase in warming. It is important to note that although there is less methane in the atmosphere than CO2, it is much more aggressive. It retains 40-50 times more heat leaving the Earth than carbon dioxide.
Infographic “RG” / Alexander Chistov / Yuri Medvedev
But about 20 years elapsed between the earthquakes in the Aleutian arc and the sharp rise in temperature in the Arctic. The effect of earthquakes seems to be somewhat late…
Leopold Lobkowski: That’s right. But the warp waves move at a speed of about 100 km per year. And to overcome the distance of about 2000 km between the Aleutian arc and the Arctic, it takes about 20 years.
And yet there are doubts. First of all, the waves are dying out and what will remain of their power in 20 years, until they reach the finish line? Secondly, earthquakes on the planet are quite common. Why do you focus specifically on the Aleutian arc and the temperature rise in the Arctic? And other tremors do not affect the weather?
Leopold Lobkowski: There is a fundamental point here. To travel great distances in the Earth’s shell and have the strength to release methane from hydrates, very powerful earthquakes are needed. Magnitude greater than 8.5. There were three of these that impacted then in the area of the Aleutian arc. Nothing like this has been seen here since. In general, shocks of such power are very rare.
And the most powerful earthquake in our history with a magnitude of 9.5 occurred in 1960 in Chile. Its climatic effect was similar to that of the Aleutians, but only 35 years after impact. The fact is that the distance from the epicenter to this continent turned out to be greater than in the Arctic. Having reached Antarctica in the mid-90s, deformation waves began to destroy the glaciers, under which hydrates with methane opened up.
By the way, supporters of the global warming theory also blame anthropogenic emissions for the destruction of glaciers. But what kind of emissions can there be. Rather, warp tectonic waves work. They begin to break through the glaciers from below, which slide into the ocean and release methane.
So their model explains a phenomenon that is still incomprehensible: why the polar regions are warming so much faster than the rest of the planet. But the main question remains: are you rehabbing CO2? If so, what about “green energy”, climate protocols and agreements?
Leopold Lobkowski: You see, the whole “green agenda” is based on the same foundation: CO2 emissions. We must do everything possible and even impossible to reduce them. This thesis has been raised almost to the absolute. We show that there is a completely different option that can significantly change the weather. And you have to take it into account. I eat? This is a question for the scientific community and politicians. I want to emphasize that our model predicts a further acceleration of glacier destruction and climate warming in Antarctica in the near future due to an unprecedented increase in the frequency of the strongest earthquakes in the South Pacific at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the XXI.
By the way
This week’s World Economic Forum in Davos will address the most pressing global issues. Experts consider climate change to be the main risk until 2033. It is associated with the risks of ecosystem destruction, natural disasters, the development of a green economy, the contradictions between food security and ecosystem conservation.
