What's happening in the Arctic. The Arctic: the confrontation for the ancestral home of humanity

MOSCOW, January 31. /TASS/. The Arctic could lose summer sea ice by 2040. This opinion was expressed in an interview with TASS by Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, leading researcher at the Laboratory of Climate Theory of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics named after. A.M. Obukhov RAS and the head of the Climatology Laboratory of the Institute of Geography of the RAS Vladimir Semenov.

The future of the climate in the Arctic, as the expert adds, still remains a mystery to world scientists, who cannot say whether the current warming in the Arctic will continue, or whether this is another cycle, followed by cooling again.

Mysteries of the Arctic climate

Global climate changes that are occurring in the world, according to the climatologist, are most pronounced in the Arctic. “The Arctic is warming 2.5-3 times warmer than the average on the planet; this phenomenon has been noted in the last 20-30 years. If in the middle hemisphere the temperature has increased by half a degree over the past 30 years, then in the Arctic - by 1.5.” , - explained Semenov.

He notes that the Arctic climate poses two big challenges for scientists: the fastest warming and the greatest uncertainty in climate change forecasts. “We are between two rather diametric points of view - either the warming will continue and will soon lead to the complete melting of sea ice in the summer, or it will be replaced by, at least not strong, cooling,” the scientist believes.

More than 30 climate models, Semyonov adds, show further warming in the Arctic under anthropogenic influence. “With increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, warming in the Arctic will continue. My personal opinion is that it will continue to get warmer, maybe not as much as now, but warming will continue,” he said.

If the climate in the Arctic is subject to cyclicality, as evidenced by observations from the 20th century, then the cycle of warming and cooling is now at its maximum, and the temperature in the Arctic should decline. “If hypothetically there is such a cycle, and it continues, then in the next 10-20 years we will observe cooling and an increase in the area of sea ice,” the agency’s interlocutor noted.

But there is an opinion that there are no cycles, and, according to the scientist, if you look further into the past, this point of view is confirmed. “There is a possibility that the changes taking place now have crossed a certain threshold, after which there will be no return to what was before, and warming will continue. Therefore, there is a possibility that by 2030 or 2040 there will be no ice in the Arctic in the summer,” - Semenov said.

Consequences of climate change in the Arctic

But despite the uncertainty of climate forecasts, scientists can say for sure that the summer sea ice area in the Arctic has recently been declining by about 10% per decade. “If the magnitude of temperature changes can be debated, then since the beginning of the 1980s, ice has been the best and most accurately observed characteristic in the Arctic. And since 1979, it has become noticeable that the area of sea ice in the summer in the Arctic has been decreasing by about 10% per decade, that is over the last 40 years by 40%, and this is a monstrous value that poses big questions for science,” Semenov noted.

According to the expert, the absence of ice in the Arctic in summer has both positive and negative aspects. “The Northern Sea Route will be free, and it will be possible to travel safely, but on the other hand, rapid warming will lead to the warming of the mainland regions around the Arctic, and the permafrost will quickly melt, which will lead to negative consequences. The entire infrastructure is built on permafrost, The soils themselves in the Arctic zone are soft, so when the permafrost thaws, all the structures will simply move and stop holding together,” the scientist added.

In addition to the direct consequences, there are also more complex ones related to the weather. “Even in Soviet times, the Arctic was called the kitchen of weather, because there are large flows of heat, very strong temperature gradients, which greatly influence the weather. What has been happening in our country in recent winters: either abnormal cold or abnormal heat - this is connected as times with rapid climate changes in the Arctic. If the temperature rise continues, then in Moscow by 2030-2040 the summer will warm by another 1.5-2 degrees, in the winter - by 4, and this will already be a European winter," he said.

In the scenario of subsequent cooling in the Arctic, the consequences will be less global. “The cooling in the Arctic will no longer be as strong as before; after all, there are now 30% more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than at the beginning of the 20th century. And I think that such a strong cooling will not happen in any case, so we will exist approximately in the same climate as in the 1980-90s. Nothing unusual or extraordinary," Semenov noted.

Lack of data

The uncertainty of climate forecasts in the Arctic is primarily due to a lack of data, both past and present. “In the past, we need data to understand the nature of the natural cycles of weather and climate change in the Arctic. There is very little data before 1950, practically none, because of this there is a poor understanding of all processes,” the expert said.

Modern science needs more stations and instrumental ground observations to monitor climate change in the Arctic. "Since the 1990s, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of stations. There is not enough funding, the relevance of this problem has decreased, because until the early 1990s there was an active military confrontation, the Arctic was considered as a basin through which an exchange of nuclear strikes would take place. Therefore, the stations, surveillance, military units - all this was there. After the 90s, detente occurred, and less attention was paid to this," the scientist believes.

The second reason for the uncertainty of forecasts is the shortcomings of climate models. “The models under consideration still cannot realistically reproduce the Arctic. Firstly, again due to a lack of data. Secondly, high spatial resolution is needed. Work is underway in this regard, the models are being improved, becoming more sophisticated,” Semenov added .

Extreme climate impacts in the Arctic

There are also radical projects to regulate the climate in the Arctic. For example, block the Bering Strait or start spraying hydrochloric acid from airplanes into the stratosphere. “There are theories of extreme impact - spraying aerosols from airplanes. Hypothetically this is possible, but this will require about 10 thousand airplanes that will fly out and spray several tons of hydrochloric acid into the stratosphere. Then it will really get colder after some time, but this is necessary to do constantly, so this option is not considered,” explained the doctor of science.

Other radical proposals include closing the Bering Strait. “This is, of course, several tens of kilometers, but somehow it can be done. Yes, this will lead to changes in the regional climate, with noticeable consequences, but no one knows for sure which ones. To summarize, to actively and quickly influence the processes in We can’t go to the Arctic. We can only observe,” Semenov said.

The scientist adds that the Arctic needs better monitoring to obtain accurate data on climate change. “I would like people to more actively explore and use the Arctic, because there are a lot of natural resources and potentially convenient transport routes. In warming conditions, this, of course, is easier to do. It is important that the Arctic forever acquires a reliable climate monitoring system,” he concluded .

(Co-author Tim Boersma, energy expert at the Brookings Institution) The shift in attention from the Arctic coincided with the start of the Russian invasion of Syria and was intensified by the sharp conflict with Turkey.Can the US and Russia really cooperate in the Arctic? Against the backdrop of statements by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at a conference in Munich about a new “Cold War,” the possibility of such cooperation seems like an attempt at wishful thinking. Many - both at the conference and outside it - consider the idea far-fetched. Of course, Russia is conducting airstrikes in Syria, continues its aggression against Ukraine and is actively increasing its military presence in the North. For many observers, the possibility of cooperation with Russia in the Arctic before mid-2015 is a dead end.

However, in recent months there have been dramatic changes in the behavior of the Russian Federation - so perhaps there is a chance to move the Arctic beyond the escalating confrontation.

Russia steadily increased its military activity and presence in the North until the fall of 2015, including the creation of the Joint Strategic Command in the Arctic. Now there are indirect but accumulating signs of a departure from this trend.

Instead of creating Arctic brigades, Russian military leaders are now busy transporting three divisions and a tank army headquarters to the “western front” in Russia. News from recently reactivated air bases on Novaya Zemlya and other remote locations largely concerns staff protests over unpaid wages and problems with the delivery of supplies. The exercises that worried Finland and Norway so much are now being held in the Southern Military District. The new National Security Strategy, approved by Putin on the last day of 2015, devotes a long passage to the threat of NATO and the chaos of “color revolutions”, but it says almost nothing about the Arctic.

The shift in attention from the Arctic coincided with the start of the Russian invasion of Syria and was intensified by the sharp conflict with Turkey. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who led the build-up of presence in the North, now travels to Iran. Supporting the Syrian intervention is a major logistical challenge in itself - add in low oil prices that have hit the country's budget and funding for massive rearmament programs, and it's clear that Russia is in trouble.

The government is trying to figure out where to make painful cuts, and many ambitious programs in the North are likely to suffer as a result. In the scramble for resources, some Russian bureaucrats point to the high geopolitical stakes in the Arctic, but that argument has clearly lost credibility. Threats to Russia's interests in the Arctic are in reality extremely low, and its desire to expand control over the continental shelf (which was announced at the UN earlier this month) depends on the goodwill of its neighbors in the Arctic.

The chances for cooperation in the Arctic are numerous. The current economic climate (falling oil prices), geopolitical climate (sanctions against Russia), and budgetary restrictions on both sides (on the Russian side for obvious reasons, on the US side due to the decision not to prioritize issues related to the Arctic), make it possible to evaluate them from a position of realism.

1. Improving emergency response mechanisms. The Coast Guard's main concern is increasing tourism. Conditions in the Arctic are very harsh and can change rapidly. Since the Arctic states' ability to navigate the region is extremely limited, an SOS signal from a tourist ship is the worst possible scenario for them. Greater cooperation to increase search and rescue capabilities is the way to best insure against such a scenario.

2. More research on climate change and methane leaks. The further the Arctic ice melts, the more methane is released that was previously locked in permafrost layers. This leads to an acceleration in the rate of global warming.

3. Expand preparedness to respond to oil emergencies. Despite all the recent developments around oil prices, an additional 15 million barrels of oil per day may be needed by 2035 - and the Arctic remains one of the last reserves where these precious resources can be found. But the Arctic states are extremely ill-prepared for oil production on ice.

4. Preparing the Bering Strait for increased shipping, since with warming in the Arctic it is only a matter of time.

There is no doubt that the current cooling of relations between Russia and other Arctic states, especially the United States, complicates the dialogue. Moreover, it can block communication on other important issues that have already been discussed earlier.

Skeptics will say that it is impossible to separate the Arctic issue from the broader sphere of international relations. This is true, and yet there is no point in giving up dialogue. On the contrary, during this difficult period the stakes are raised, and leaders must do everything to maintain the dialogue that already exists.

Realists prefer to focus on increasing the US military presence in the Arctic, arguing that Russia's position in the region is currently stronger. America's position in the Arctic is indeed woefully weak at the moment, but trying to focus solely on this issue could send the wrong message.

A combined strategy should be adopted: begin additional investment in American capabilities in the Arctic, but at the same time intensify efforts to conduct Arctic dialogue. This may be difficult, but given the success of the constructive approach in the Arctic in recent years, it will also be worthwhile.

Will we have to close the Bering Strait and spray hydrochloric acid into the stratosphere?

The Arctic could lose summer sea ice by 2040. This opinion was expressed by Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, leading researcher at the Laboratory of Climate Theory of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics named after. A.M. Obukhov RAS and the head of the Climatology Laboratory of the Institute of Geography of the RAS Vladimir Semenov.

Mysteries of the Arctic climate

Consequences of climate change in the Arctic

Lack of data

Extreme climate impacts in the Arctic

Why are Western partners so concerned about Russia’s economic projects in the Arctic?

In March 2017, a plenary meeting of the European Parliament was held, at which a resolution was adopted banning European countries from extracting oil in the Arctic zone. It is justified by the EU's extreme concern about the threat to the region's ecology. Actually, ecology is simply a science that studies the interaction of living organisms and their communities with each other and with their surrounding environment. So, of course, nothing can really threaten her. However, for more than a quarter of a century the term has been leading an independent life, allowing it to cover almost anything due to its vagueness and scientific nature. Most often - money.

It is believed that in this case, the decisions of European parliamentarians are aimed at countering the expansion of Norwegian oil production in the Arctic. The irony of what is happening is that five years earlier, in 2012, Norway itself was very worried about the safety of the Arctic ecosystem. But then, having achieved the expansion of its territory there, it began to actively develop production and even harshly oppose Greenpeace’s attempts to interfere with this process.

At first glance, the box opens simply. Of all 28 EU member countries, only Norway today has access to Arctic waters, and the resources of the “pan-European” North Sea have already begun to be significantly depleted, thereby turning Norway into the only supplier of energy resources, which actually form the basis of the economy of industrialized countries. Is it any wonder they are dissatisfied with this “injustice”?

Conflict over Norwegian mining is necessary to develop a mechanism for dividing Arctic reserves. And because 40% polar territory belongs to Russia, then it is planned to “restore justice” at our expense.

A remote place that suddenly became priceless

And that's not all. According to calculations by American geologists, the Arctic region (including the shelf and adjacent land) contains about 400 billion barrels of energy in oil equivalent or up to 20% of all technically recoverable reserves of the planet.

These balls in the picture of the total estimated reserves, although curious in themselves, actually mean that... the start of commercial exploitation of polar fields only in part of one resource - oil - increases the reserves owned by Russia by 110%, Canada - by 52%, the USA - by 339%, and Norway generally going for a record - 1677% !

Is it any wonder at the suddenness of the emergence, as they say? Sergey Lavrov, “our foreign partners” have a persistent desire to “redistribute” the Arctic? No matter what anyone says about the post-industrial economy, in order for a new iPhone to be born or Musk’s electric car to go, first somewhere is required get raw materials, from which they are made, and the energy for the production process itself.

Ore, coal, oil, and gas form the basis of the industrial pyramid of the world, and their ownership continues to be a source of huge income. Whoever controls it has power.

It is from this moment that the most important thing begins, which ultimately predetermined all the processes taking place today and causes “ keen gastronomic interest» to Russia from the EU, USA and other countries.

Firstly, the Arctic ice is, of course, melting, but, as can be seen in satellite photographs and especially video recordings, this process is very uneven. To the greatest extent they retreat, so to speak , from “our” side of the planetary crown, while in the opposite sectors the ice conditions still remain difficult. This means that the costs of exploration and production also differ radically.

Secondly, and this is even more important, as the ice melts, many parts of the region become accessible not only for superficial preliminary “probing”, full-scale exploration of the geography of deposits becomes possible, and this also turns out to be strongly not in favor of Western countries. As theoretical calculations are refined, the “location areas” increasingly turn out to be precisely in the Russian sector.

Well, how can one not be indignant about the injustice of the situation?! So they were indignant. In 2009, at the NATO conference “Security Prospects in the High North”, held in Reykjavik, then NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated that

« climate change and melting ice facilitating access to energy and marine resources, and the potential for new trans-Arctic shipping routes will create new challenges and opportunities and increase the region's importance to the Alliance».

Betrayal, mistakes and maritime law

No matter how strange it may seem, since the time of the dotted contour lines on maps, nothing has changed in the legal sense of the final specification of the nationality of the Arctic territories. To this day, no final international legal document exists. But there are consequences of geopolitical, to put it mildly, mistakes.

In June 1990 USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev, as they said then, as part of a gesture of goodwill, almost like in the famous scene “about the Kemsk volost,” he transferred 76 thousand square meters to the United States. km of the Soviet economic zone in the Bering Strait. The US interest in them was known. In this area there were already explored, but not yet developed oil and gas fields. And it would be okay if the losses in fishing reached $2 billion, it would be okay if we had income from oil, which we had not yet extracted then, and therefore could not accurately estimate.

Gorbachev's gift to the USA - 76 thousand sq. km of the Arctic - a rash step that called into question the entire concept of Soviet jurisdiction throughout our sector.

In turn, the United States received clues to challenge the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation over the islands of Wrangel, Herald, Bennett, Henrietta, Medny, Sivuch and Kalan.

Later, in 1997, the Russian government ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. There were many reasons, and, at first glance, they did not concern the North, but in fact this step meant an official Russia's agreement with the abolition of the very concept of polar sectors. From this moment on, new rules came into play. According to them, any coastal state had the right only to a twelve-mile strip from the water's edge as sovereign possessions and another 200 nautical miles from the coast inland - an exclusive economic zone. If there were islands belonging to it, the boundary lines were measured from them. And most importantly, economic rights extended only to the continental shelf. If it ended earlier, then the border of rights ended too.

As a result of an error(let's call things by their proper names, betrayal. approx. RuAN)Government of the Russian Federation in 1997, we lost half of our Arctic, and in the center of the region a very promising, very tasty, but at the same time legally a completely no-one's hole was formed.

“Give the Arctic to anyone, but not Russia”

True, every cloud has a silver lining. Being confident in the absoluteness of its global dominance, the United States did not want to limit itself in advance to any official framework and this Convention on the Sea the law has not been signed to this day. It was assumed that in conditions of uncertainty they would be able to “push” the defeated Soviet Union, and later Russia, into even larger-scale concessions. In addition, for a number of reasons, its conditions are not very favorable in the same oil production and the States themselves (in particular, in the Gulf of Mexico), as they sometimes say, have “grabbed” a number of “not their” territories, where they are now actively extracting hydrocarbons. So today they cannot trump the norms of the Convention too much in disputes with Russia.

At the same time, the concept of the document strictly ties the territorial rights of states to the configuration of the continental shelf, thereby recognizing their right to revise the border line if the inaccuracy of previous scientific and geographical data is proven. So, in In August 2015, Russia submitted an application to the UN to officially expand the boundaries of the shelf that belongs to us. In particular, to the Lomonosov Ridge, the underwater rise of Mendeleev - Alpha and other areas of the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, which in total expands our territory for 1.2 million sq. km.

And although at the moment the final UN decision has not yet been made, and the slowness of the UN bureaucracy is legendary (according to our estimates, the procedure will take up to ten years), nevertheless, in general, the recognition process is going well, despite the open opposition of the United States.

However, not only them. Almost immediately after the ratification of the Convention, pressure from other “claimants” began to increase on Russia. Most often, it is far from any legal norms or international treaties, resulting in pure hysteria. Of course, covered up by great environmental concerns. For example, the British Sunday Times published an openly scandalous article “ Give the Arctic to Russia and expect new environmental disasters ”, which for a long time became the basis for a wide variety of attacks on our country. Including from official stands. Especially when there was an urgent need to find at least some objections to our actions (in strict accordance with international standards) to clarify the border.

And why wouldn’t the British be concerned if Russian profits from production at new discovered or potentially explored fields were estimated at absolutely fantastic figures - 200 trillion dollars in the next 15-20 years alone! As usual: why to these Russians, and not to all advanced humanity! Yes, at least give it to Chad, but not to Russia! Please note that regarding Chad, this is a direct quote from the article.

Since then, the list of those wishing to “remove the heavy burden of the resource curse from Russia” has only expanded. The Danish Ministry of Science stated that the Lomonosov Ridge is in fact a continuation of Greenland, and on this basis “Kemsk parish” should be given to them. True, there is no convincing scientific evidence for this. This section of the bottom is still being studied by the Swedish-Danish expedition LOMORG. Why such keen interest? According to the US National Geological Survey, there may be approximately 50 billion barrels of oil “out there” somewhere. It’s not clear what it’s like about environmental protection, but it’s obvious that if they win, the Danes will be able to match Libya’s reserves. What does Denmark have to do with it? First oil in September 2010 in Danish-owned Greenland produced by the British company Cairn Energy. But any connection between the British concern in the newspaper article and the Swedish-Danish scientific research is, of course, completely coincidental.

However, the matter was not limited to that one publication. The Independent newspaper conveyed to the general world public the opinion of experts from the British scientific center “Henry Jackson Society”, who stated in their report that NATO member countries should have extremely serious concerns about Russia’s strengthening of its positions in the Arctic. More than 20 countries have already made their claims to the Arctic in one form or another, including Finland, Sweden, Great Britain, Germany and even, according to some sources, the Baltic republics and Poland, as well as have nothing to do with the Arctic at all India, China, South Korea, Japan and Brazil.

One way to deprive Russia of Arctic wealth is to lobby for the position that the Arctic should belong to around the world(To the World Government, through the structure of intermediaries. approx. RuAN). That is, take away and divide the Arctic between all states of the planet.

When rules stop suiting gentlemen

This well-known saying describes as clearly as possible everything that is happening now around the issue of “fairness” in the division of the world’s mineral reserves. Is it possible that in the late 90s and early 2000s the West felt more confident, if not bolder, and tried “squeeze out” the tasty region increasingly in the wake of hysterical publications in the media, high-profile actions of various kinds of environmentalists, such as Greenpeace with attempts to storm drilling platforms, and pushing through decisions that are beneficial to themselves in international bodies, including the UN and the numerous committees and commissions that have arisen, like mushrooms after the rain.” across the North."

If not for the thickness of perennial polar ice, they would have started hilling the “wrung out” already then. Including openly in person, as in the Gulf of Mexico. But in those days, northern oil was still technically almost inaccessible. In addition, the Middle East, which was much more easily mined, seemed to be a flooded sea. Plus I was preparing " shale revolution" So there was no particular need to bring things to the point of literally shooting. But they began to prepare to play such a trump card, just in case.

In particular, in USA a commission was created to draw up “an accurate map of territorial waters and the outline of the continental shelf.” And so that they would not be too bored and scared to work in the harsh conditions of the Arctic, they are stationed in Alaska three military army bases and three - air force. The total number of the group, including the Coast Guard, has been increased to 24 thousand military personnel.

The US Department of the Navy adopted a document entitled " Arctic Navy Action Plan».

« The United States has broad and fundamental interests in the Arctic region, the document says, and Washington is prepared to act either independently or jointly with other states to secure these interests. Among these interests- issues such as missile defense and early warning systems, the deployment of sea and air systems for strategic maritime transport, strategic deterrence, maritime presence and maritime security operations, and the resulting freedom of navigation and overflight».

At the conference in Norfolk, a new “strategic communications concept” was presented, suggesting a broad program for expanding American forward deployments in the Arctic and developing its supporting infrastructure.

According to The Wall Street Journal, in May 2017, a briefing was held in Brussels for NATO generals, including Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, at which the option of reintroducing the post of Supreme Commander was considered. commander in chief NATO forces in the Atlantic.

Well, as a final note, to remove all the confusion and uncertainty, on March 28, the head of the European Command of the US Armed Forces, General Curtis Scaparrotti, said that Russia had turned from a US partner into an antagonist.

Head of the US European Command, General Curtis Scaparrotti

The European partners in the Alliance are not far behind the patron. Since 2009 Norway is actively trying to put together an alliance from the Scandinavian countries, already called “Mini-NATO”. And not just for the sake of oil. Recognition of its rights to new parts of Antarctica already in the short term means an increase in income from fishing at least at least 1.1 billion dollars per year, and in the medium term - the possibility of organizing the production of an extensive list of rare metals, the deposits of which have already been previously delineated in the disputed territories.

At the London NATO summit in 2011, the idea was actively supported by representatives of Great Britain, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, without hiding the fact that the purpose of the association is “to limit Russia’s military influence in the Arctic.”

In the West, the idea of creating “ Mini NATO"as a counterbalance to Russia's growing influence in the Arctic. Exclusively for “self-defense purposes,” of course.

The only thing stopping them all

This question, I suppose, is rhetorical, but still. From the implementation of plans repeatedly voiced by representatives for “ fair redistribution“The Arctic region of our foreign “partners” is held only by Russian armed forces.

Previously, they did not have time to take advantage of Russia’s weakness, but it's too late now. On December 1, 2014, a joint strategic command was formed on the basis of the Northern Fleet and began to receive troops. (USC) "North". Groups of troops have been formed and deployed on the island territories of Russia in the Arctic, including Novaya Zemlya, the New Siberian Islands, Wrangel Island, and also on Cape Schmidt. The formation of specialized ground units has begun. In 2015, the 1st Arctic Brigade was created in the Murmansk Region, and in 2016, the creation of the 2nd Brigade began in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug.

Exercises of the 1st Arctic Brigade of the Russian Armed Forces

It is being built at an accelerated pace basing and support infrastructure. There are 13 airfields alone. Another aviation training ground and 10 technical positions of radar departments and aviation guidance points.

In fact, the list of everything for the protection and defense of both the Northern Sea Route and our entire Arctic zone is much more extensive. It includes new equipment (artillery, missiles, radio engineering, transport), and new types of weapons adapted or directly developed for the harsh conditions of the Far North, and new bases for permanent deployment points.

Arctic Trefoil is a military base of the Russian Federation on the island of Alexandra Land in the Franz Josef Land archipelago

The current level of combat readiness of the units and the command as a whole was tested by the exercises that took place at OSK Sever from March 16 to March 21, 2017. 38 thousand military personnel, about 4 thousand military equipment, more than 55 ships and submarines, 110 aircraft and a helicopter took part in them. Two issues were worked out: ensuring the security of the country’s territory and the functioning of the logistics line of the Northern Sea Route, as well as the interaction of the northern strategic command with other military districts of the Russian Federation. So, in particular, paratroopers from a brigade stationed in Ivanovo landed in the area of the Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land archipelagos. The distance for transferring reinforcement units and reserves varied from 400 to 4 thousand kilometers from their permanent locations. The list of tasks included repelling landings of a mock enemy and destroying his columns on the march, searching for and eliminating sabotage and reconnaissance groups, striking individual ships and naval groups, as well as solving air defense problems, up to and including repelling a massive attack by cruise missiles.

How did everything go? Yes it went fine. General Breedlove didn't like it.

« When it comes to security, Russia's behavior in the Arctic is a growing concern, he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. - Russia’s buildup of its troops in the Arctic, the opening of military bases there and the creation of a unified strategic command “North” to protect its territories from the mythical threat, which the entire international community recognizes as Russian and which no one is encroaching on, does not meet the interests of the seven other Arctic states“, - said the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe at a hearing in the US Congress.

His predecessor, Admiral James Stavridis, agreed with this assessment before an important discussion with the participation of NATO member countries on environmental security in the Arctic Ocean: “ So far, disputes in the north have been resolved peacefully, but climate change may shift the balance, since the exploitation of relatively accessible natural resources will be a serious temptation».

From a position of strength with Russia speak about the revision of borders in the Arctic has already does not work. And we are actively working to ensure that the West does not even think about this in the future.

The Arctic is a new chessboard of geopolitics (Roman Romanov)

The Arctic in a period of geopolitical change: assessment and recommendations

The ancestral home of humanity Daaria

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone interested...

The Arctic is a physical-geographical region of our planet with an area of about 27 million square meters. km, which is adjacent to the North Pole. It includes the margins of North America and Eurasia, almost the entire Arctic Ocean and adjacent parts of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

The nature of the Arctic is unique, and its climate is one of the harshest on Earth. At the same time, the weather here is changeable: under the influence of a powerful cyclone, a sharp warming of 7-10 degrees is possible.

Temperature distribution

Temperature minimums were recorded on Yamal (up to -67 degrees), Taimyr (up to -62), Wrangel Island (up to -57.7), Cape Chelyuskin (up to -48.8), Spitsbergen (up to -46.3). On Heinz Island, where the observatory is located. Krenkel, the world's northernmost weather station, the temperature dropped to a maximum of -44.4 degrees. The average February temperature at the North Pole is -43 degrees, at Cape Chelyuskin -28.2 o C.

From April to September, the Arctic climate remains the coldest in the Northern Hemisphere. The average July temperature at Cape Chelyuskin barely reaches +1.4 degrees; at the North Pole in the summer months the thermometer shows about zero. On the Hooker and Heinz Islands, the average July temperature does not exceed +0.7 degrees. On Golomyanny Island in July it warms up to +0.6, although in May there are still frosts down to -9.6 o C. Similar indicators are observed on Vize Island.

Arctic winter

In winter, cyclones are active in the Arctic. Those coming from the Atlantic bring frequent winds, heavy rainfall and large clouds. In the Siberian part of the Arctic, anticyclones rule in winter, so there is little precipitation, weak winds, little cloudiness, but severe frosts. The Canadian and Greenland regions are also affected by anticyclones, but to a lesser extent.

In general, the climate in the Arctic in winter is monotonous, temperature fluctuations are insignificant. The polar night lasts six months, during which time the thermometer can drop to -60 degrees.

Arctic summer

The warmest month is July: in the Arctic basin the temperature rises to 0.5 degrees, on the sea coast - up to +3, in the mainland area - up to +10, and in the center of Greenland - up to +12. However, even in the warm season frosts are possible.

The Arctic basin is characterized by high humidity (up to 98 percent), so in summer there is frequent fog, low stratus clouds, and precipitation in the form of sleet and rain. Due to the warm North Atlantic Current, the Barents Sea is practically ice-free in summer.

Arctic climate change

The Arctic region is currently acquiring new features. The climate is softening from year to year, which is reflected in rising air temperatures, melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and a decrease in the thickness and extent of sea ice. This has consequences for our entire planet.

Arctic researchers say the Arctic Ocean will lose its summer ice before 2100. Specific dates are not named, some point to 2030, others to 2060, and others to 2080. In addition, experts note that due to the thawing of permafrost, there is a danger of releasing a large volume of methane, which is contained in its composition.

If computer modeling is to be believed, the area of sea ice will only shrink in the future. Arctic researchers have found that warming in the polar regions is due to the radiative effects of greenhouse gases, which, in turn, are a consequence of human activity.

Consequences of climate change

Doctor of Physics and Mathematics Vladimir Semenov suggested that we may not see Arctic ice in the summer of 2040. According to the expert, this has both negative and positive aspects. The advantage is that the Northern Sea Route will become free, which will make it possible to travel freely. However, rapid warming will change the nature of the Arctic, permafrost will begin to thaw, and all structures built on it will no longer hold up, since the soils in this zone are soft.

Many animals may disappear completely. Polar bears face the greatest danger: due to the reduction in sea ice area, they are forced to go to the coast, where their food supply is much smaller.

In addition to these consequences, there are others. Back in Soviet times, the Arctic was called the “kitchen of weather” because the phenomena occurring in this region greatly influence the weather around the world. Climate changes in the Arctic are the cause of the abnormally warm and abnormally cold winters that we have seen in recent years both in our country and in other countries. Scientists have calculated that if large heat flows continue to be released in the Arctic zone, by 2030-2040. in Moscow, the average temperature in summer will increase by one and a half to two degrees, and in winter - by as much as four degrees.

Climate regulation projects

There are various proposals on this matter, some of which are radical. For example, there is an extreme impact theory that involves spraying aerosols into the stratosphere from airplanes to cause cooling. Hypothetically, this is feasible, but to really get cold, it would take about ten thousand planes constantly flying and spraying tons of hydrochloric acid. Of course, this option is difficult to implement.

Another radical proposal is to dam the Bering Strait. Technically, this can also be done, but no one can accurately predict how the regional climate will change in this case and what consequences this will lead to.

Thus, researchers agree that humanity cannot quickly and actively influence the climate of the Arctic, but can only observe and conduct high-quality monitoring to obtain accurate information about the changes taking place.

Portal for schoolchildren. Self-preparation