![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
profprЕще одно мое интервью в местной газетке. Все вроде бы и неплохо, но грамотность... Что же интервьюер меня на нормальный английский не перевела? Никогда я не научусь разговаривать на языке Шекспира как Шекспир :( Кстати - автор статьи - индианка, Дорин Желтая Птичка.
PRAIRIE VOICES: Global warming
By Dorreen Yellow Bird
Herald Staff Writer - 12/23/2007 Andrei Kirilenko,associate professor,Department of Earth System Science and Policy, UND
Kirilenko works with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel whose reports greatly influence the worldwide debate on global warming. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore.
Kirilenko's research interests center on environmental modeling and sustainability issues, especially the global and regional impacts of climate change. He received a master's degree in applied mathematics from Moscow State University and a doctoral degree in computer science from the Russian Academy of Science in 1990.
He lives in Grand Forks while waiting for this wife, Svetlana, to join him in a few months. They have two daughters, Maria and Dacha.
Kirilenko spoke with Herald Staff Writer Dorreen Yellow Bird.
The 12-day conference this month in Bali, Indonesia, focused on global warming and climate change. What are you thoughts about our changing climate?
I am quite interested in the results of this conference, partially because the scientific part of it was based on the report that I was a part of. This was the group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. It is doing a review of recent scientific advancements in climate change.
This is a large group of scientists, about 2,000 from around the world, who are participating in each of the reports. There are four large volumes; each report is about 700 pages long.
The report combines the latest scientific achievements for about the past six or seven years. The project was started in 1990, when the United Nations first recognized the need to sponsor international action on international global climate change.
Why was that thought to be necessary?
It was due to several factors. If you look into history of science, the amount of money going into climate research increased dramatically in the 1950s and 1960s, mainly because of military applications. Due to the Cold War, there was serious research on the possibility of modifying climate for not only military purposes, but also to benefit agriculture.
Later, we learned how to build large computer models of climate and review the climate in past times. The first records of past climates were presented in the late 1960s.
By the mid-1980s, we could see the first report of human modification of climate as detected by real science. There was a lot of concern among scientists that it was irreversible.
What was the theme of the conference in Bali?
It was mostly about preventing the negative affects of climate change. It's clear that we're not able to stop the process of human modification of climate. Even if we stop increasing the amount of human emissions right now, the concentration of greenhouse gases such carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will increase.
For example, if we stop increasing our emissions, global temperatures still would increase by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. So, every 10 years, the temperature will increase by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
If we continue business as usual, this rate of temperature increase would double. That means we cannot stop this process, but we can slow it down enough so that our society is able to adapt.
We need to allocate some resources to help those societies that are poor and some areas that need additional help adjusting to new climates.
There are special concerns about African countries that are not doing very well right now. There are concerns that increased temperatures will lead agricultural problems. It's not only agricultural; there also is concern about water that's safe to drink.
What is unknown is what's going on with infectious diseases. There's a lot of concern that with warmer temperatures, the areas for these diseases would increase.
There is the possibility of mitigating the problem, which means we release less greenhouse gases and try to compensate for the greenhouse gases that we do release. An example is planting more trees that would make a sink for atmospheric CO2. That's a possibility.
I understand that the prairies have a similar effect on carbon dioxide. Can you explain?
Especially the soils, because soil is a huge reservoir for carbon. If you increase the amount of carbon allocated in soils, that means that you would be able to decrease our impact on the atmosphere. "Low-till" methods release less carbon from the soil.
There also is the possibility to make money on the prevention of climate change. If you can prove that you prevent some amount of carbon dioxide from being released, you can sell these carbon credits. In Europe, there is a huge market for carbon credits. It's billions of dollars.
Remember, our task is to slow down the process. So, what is happening is we are taking a lot of carbon from the atmosphere and putting it into storage, and it will stay in storage for thousands of years.
Look at coal. It's the carbon that was in the atmosphere millions of years ago. Eventually, it was captured in living plants, then fossilized — and it has stayed that way for millions and millions of years.
That's storage that is slow to go back into the atmosphere. That's what we need.
So if we burn coal, we are putting carbon back into the atmosphere?
Yes. But we want to put it back into the atmosphere slowly.
In North Dakota, we have a lot of carbon in our very productive soils, and it is being held. What's also interesting about North Dakota is that we have wind energy, a very good resource. It is very windy here, so we are in a good position for alternative energy production. The interest in wind energy is increasing, and we will be in a good position for producing our own energy.
How can we help slow global warming?
There are some simple things to start with. For example, replacing light bulbs with energy-saving ones; when you're in the market for a new car, buy one that takes less gasoline; use public transportation, car pooling and efficient appliances.
Businesses need to do what's right, too. It might be profitable for businesses to pollute, but it's not good for society and climate change.
California is doing a lot in terms of reducing impact on climate and environment.
These are global problems, and there is no one "silver bullet." There are a lot of little things in reducing energy consumption.
What percentage of scientists say global warming is a significant problem?
I would say probably 99 percent of scientists say global warming is a serious problem. In scientific terms, there are some scientists who believe it's overrated, but they are extremely rare.
The mass media presents this as if there is a controversy in science. When you are talking about science, there always is a level of uncertainty, but it's healthy that you have scientists who doubt. But there are a very few scientists who are doubt climate change.
PRAIRIE VOICES: Global warming
By Dorreen Yellow Bird
Herald Staff Writer - 12/23/2007 Andrei Kirilenko,associate professor,Department of Earth System Science and Policy, UND
Kirilenko works with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel whose reports greatly influence the worldwide debate on global warming. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former vice president Al Gore.
Kirilenko's research interests center on environmental modeling and sustainability issues, especially the global and regional impacts of climate change. He received a master's degree in applied mathematics from Moscow State University and a doctoral degree in computer science from the Russian Academy of Science in 1990.
He lives in Grand Forks while waiting for this wife, Svetlana, to join him in a few months. They have two daughters, Maria and Dacha.
Kirilenko spoke with Herald Staff Writer Dorreen Yellow Bird.
The 12-day conference this month in Bali, Indonesia, focused on global warming and climate change. What are you thoughts about our changing climate?
I am quite interested in the results of this conference, partially because the scientific part of it was based on the report that I was a part of. This was the group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. It is doing a review of recent scientific advancements in climate change.
This is a large group of scientists, about 2,000 from around the world, who are participating in each of the reports. There are four large volumes; each report is about 700 pages long.
The report combines the latest scientific achievements for about the past six or seven years. The project was started in 1990, when the United Nations first recognized the need to sponsor international action on international global climate change.
Why was that thought to be necessary?
It was due to several factors. If you look into history of science, the amount of money going into climate research increased dramatically in the 1950s and 1960s, mainly because of military applications. Due to the Cold War, there was serious research on the possibility of modifying climate for not only military purposes, but also to benefit agriculture.
Later, we learned how to build large computer models of climate and review the climate in past times. The first records of past climates were presented in the late 1960s.
By the mid-1980s, we could see the first report of human modification of climate as detected by real science. There was a lot of concern among scientists that it was irreversible.
What was the theme of the conference in Bali?
It was mostly about preventing the negative affects of climate change. It's clear that we're not able to stop the process of human modification of climate. Even if we stop increasing the amount of human emissions right now, the concentration of greenhouse gases such carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will increase.
For example, if we stop increasing our emissions, global temperatures still would increase by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. So, every 10 years, the temperature will increase by about 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
If we continue business as usual, this rate of temperature increase would double. That means we cannot stop this process, but we can slow it down enough so that our society is able to adapt.
We need to allocate some resources to help those societies that are poor and some areas that need additional help adjusting to new climates.
There are special concerns about African countries that are not doing very well right now. There are concerns that increased temperatures will lead agricultural problems. It's not only agricultural; there also is concern about water that's safe to drink.
What is unknown is what's going on with infectious diseases. There's a lot of concern that with warmer temperatures, the areas for these diseases would increase.
There is the possibility of mitigating the problem, which means we release less greenhouse gases and try to compensate for the greenhouse gases that we do release. An example is planting more trees that would make a sink for atmospheric CO2. That's a possibility.
I understand that the prairies have a similar effect on carbon dioxide. Can you explain?
Especially the soils, because soil is a huge reservoir for carbon. If you increase the amount of carbon allocated in soils, that means that you would be able to decrease our impact on the atmosphere. "Low-till" methods release less carbon from the soil.
There also is the possibility to make money on the prevention of climate change. If you can prove that you prevent some amount of carbon dioxide from being released, you can sell these carbon credits. In Europe, there is a huge market for carbon credits. It's billions of dollars.
Remember, our task is to slow down the process. So, what is happening is we are taking a lot of carbon from the atmosphere and putting it into storage, and it will stay in storage for thousands of years.
Look at coal. It's the carbon that was in the atmosphere millions of years ago. Eventually, it was captured in living plants, then fossilized — and it has stayed that way for millions and millions of years.
That's storage that is slow to go back into the atmosphere. That's what we need.
So if we burn coal, we are putting carbon back into the atmosphere?
Yes. But we want to put it back into the atmosphere slowly.
In North Dakota, we have a lot of carbon in our very productive soils, and it is being held. What's also interesting about North Dakota is that we have wind energy, a very good resource. It is very windy here, so we are in a good position for alternative energy production. The interest in wind energy is increasing, and we will be in a good position for producing our own energy.
How can we help slow global warming?
There are some simple things to start with. For example, replacing light bulbs with energy-saving ones; when you're in the market for a new car, buy one that takes less gasoline; use public transportation, car pooling and efficient appliances.
Businesses need to do what's right, too. It might be profitable for businesses to pollute, but it's not good for society and climate change.
California is doing a lot in terms of reducing impact on climate and environment.
These are global problems, and there is no one "silver bullet." There are a lot of little things in reducing energy consumption.
What percentage of scientists say global warming is a significant problem?
I would say probably 99 percent of scientists say global warming is a serious problem. In scientific terms, there are some scientists who believe it's overrated, but they are extremely rare.
The mass media presents this as if there is a controversy in science. When you are talking about science, there always is a level of uncertainty, but it's healthy that you have scientists who doubt. But there are a very few scientists who are doubt climate change.
