Океанолог: Мы не готовы к тому, что скрывает океан. (реально)

Have you ever thought that we have explored the surface of Mars better than the depths of our own ocean? What is underwater and takes up two-thirds of the Earth? A darkness we know almost nothing about. The Gulf Stream, which influences the climate in Europe, is slowing down. A change in configuration threatens cataclysm. This problem is acute, so what is happening?

Europe, is slowing down. A change in configuration threatens cataclysm. This problem is acute, so what is happening?

Alexander Osacheev, Doctor of Sciences, leading scientist at the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has led more than 30 expeditions. In 2022, he discovered two currents in the Kara Sea that science had never known about. For this, he received an award from the President of the country. This is the man who proved: "We know much less about the ocean than we think." It's quite possible, for example, that there are species of giant squid that never come to the surface, and we simply don't know about them. And they can be quite large. How dangerous is ocean microplastic pollution? We also have the problem that a huge amount of fresh water is polluted and unfit for consumption, but there are cases where people die in such situations. Have signs of civilization been found in the deep ocean? There was a major discovery that completely changed our understanding of how life functions in the ocean. Before you know it, your investment in your family will return and multiply.

he received an award from the President of the country. This is the man who proved: "We know much less about the ocean than we think." It's quite possible, for example, that there are species of giant squid that never come to the surface, and we

Deposit with a rate of 16% per annum in Domare Bank. Contribution to the most valuable.

such situations. Have signs of civilization been found in the deep ocean? There was a major discovery that completely changed our understanding of how life functions in the ocean. Before you know it , your investment in your family will return and multiply.

Theoretically, could something intelligent exist on the ocean floor? If we fantasize, then we will not find anything large, really large, like a civilization on the seabed because we have, after all, illuminated the seabed with the help of radar, with the help of halots, radars, sonars. And in general, we, well, more or less the seabed there, with a step of a kilometer or several kilometers, we know almost the entire area of the world's oceans. But it’s easy to assume that there could be some unusual life forms there. And this is certainly true. There was a very serious discovery in the second half of the 20th century, yes, chemosynthesis, which completely revolutionized our understanding of how life functions on Earth. All standard life is built on photosynthesis. We capture the energy of light, plants or algae that photosynthesize. They translate this, well, they build their bodies, they are eaten further by herbivores, predators, a food chain is built. In principle, some bacteria were known that use the energy of chemical reactions, but this was, well, a rather marginal story. Here you go. And at the bottom of the world's oceans, black smokers were found, eh, from where, it means, sea water seeps into the bowels of the earth, heats up to a temperature of hundreds of degrees, along the way it captures various substances, chemical elements, metals, and it is ejected in a stream. This means that the fluid produced there has a temperature of hundreds of degrees.

Theoretically, could something intelligent exist on the ocean floor? If we fantasize, then we will not find anything large, really large, like a civilization on the seabed because we have, after all, illuminated the seabed with the help of radar,

Of course, it quickly cools down to the temperature of water, but nevertheless, on this energy of chemical reactions, unusual chemical substances foreign to the ocean in very high concentrations and the energy of chemical reactions, entire ecosystems exist, such branched, complex ones with some kind of, that is, food chain. That's where the phenomenon still exists. But it is obvious that when our earth was younger, there was no oxygen there and there was some other form of obtaining energy. But perhaps it was this very same chemosynthesis, perhaps there was something else. But here is an example, when we found something on the ocean floor, this relic from the past, from ancient times, maybe there was something else in ancient times, there was some kind of diversity, energy production, but this is simply the greatest discovery.

could be some unusual life forms there . And this is certainly true. There was a very serious discovery in the second half of the 20th century, yes, Chemosynthesis, which completely revolutionized our understanding of how life functions on Earth. All

But it is worth noting that the average depth in the ocean is 4 km. Yes, yes, that's absolutely right, 4 km.

that use the energy of chemical reactions, but this was, well, a rather marginal story. Here you go . And at the bottom of the world's oceans, black smokers were found, eh, from where, it means, sea water seeps into the

Accordingly, the pressure at this depth is colossal. How do living creatures even manage to survive there?

Of course, it quickly cools down to the temperature of water, but nevertheless, on this energy of chemical reactions, unusual chemical substances foreign to the ocean in very high concentrations and the energy of chemical reactions, entire ecosystems exist, such

Well, their evolution took a different course. A person has many complex devices: eyes, nose, I don’t know, a heart, a brain, and even more so. These animals also have adaptations to this way of life. But the idea is that liquids, if they are fish, if they are animals similar to us, then in their blood, in their internal fluid there is high pressure from dissolved gases. Yes.

it was this very same Himosinets, perhaps there was something else. But here is an example, when we found something on the ocean floor, this relic from the past, from ancient times, maybe there was something else in ancient times

In fact, when a real diver dives to great depths, he breathes through scuba gear, and gases, nitrogen, are pumped into his blood under high pressure. And it is precisely this pressure that compensates for the external pressure of the water column. And, accordingly, if we take the fish out of deep water to the surface, it is torn apart. Not because there is some kind of pressure inside her, because she has some kind of cavity there, a ball or something like that. Her blood is tearing her apart, her capillaries are tearing apart, or whatever they call it in fish.

But it is worth noting that the average depth in the ocean is 4 km. Yes, yes, that's absolutely right, 4 km.

Well, actually, well, it seems like the mechanism is not at all tricky, but the person is simply made differently. Now, if we could speed up evolution, control it somehow, we would breed a human species that would, well, be able to control pressure not through scuba gear, which is very dangerous and can’t be done for long, but so that a person, for example, would take scuba gear, and that’s it, and then he would swim underwater his whole life, like a whale or like someone else. And this would be very convenient, because, well, here’s the problem that humans are not present in the ocean, or, yes, it’s more difficult to study because of this, yes, we don’t understand, we don’t see it. For example, I'll tell you something like this. Here are the same chemosynthetic bacteria. But in the ocean, in recent decades, various living creatures have been found, including large living creatures about which, well, we knew little, did not understand.

Well, their evolution took a different course. A person has many complex devices: eyes, nose, I don’t know, a heart, a brain, and even more so. These animals also have adaptations to this way of life. But the idea is that liquids, if they are fish,

There's the same krakenkin there, a giant squid. They found the beaks of these giant squids. The squid has a hard beak. The rest of the squid is soft and decaying, but its beak is hard and horny. Well, and in the stomachs of sperm whales, in the stomachs of large fish, they found large beaks, well, large beaks. And that means the squid should be there 10 m, maybe even a little more than 10 m. But no one has ever seen these squids, because they swim at depth and don’t rise to the surface. And only when underwater video filming was invented in the last decades, the resources were available to conduct this mass filming, and the computer capability appeared to process these enormous days, weeks, months of filming. Filmed a deep-sea squid. Indeed, there is a ten-meter giant squid that swims in the ocean. If a person were present in the ocean, he would, of course, have seen this squid long ago, since time immemorial, as soon as he appeared in the ocean. I really like the story about the longest living creature on the planet. This is not a blue whale, but a siphonophore. Our whale is, I think, about 30-35 meters long. I don’t remember how many siphonophores there are now, but I think there are more. Up to 40 m, I think, right?

In fact, when a real diver dives to great depths, he breathes through scuba gear, and gases, nitrogen, are pumped into his blood under high pressure . And it is precisely this pressure that compensates for the external pressure. water column. And,

Yes, up to the juice and maybe even more. Siphonophore is simply a fragile creature. It was difficult to pull him out. It's like a thread, like a jellyfish tentacle. It's difficult to remove without damaging it. Yes.

that. Her blood is tearing her apart, her capillaries are tearing apart, or whatever they call it in fish.

Observe that life at great depths is invisible. And only with underwater photography and video filming was it possible to capture it. There's probably something else floating in the ocean that we don't know about. I can also tell you an interesting story. It has recently become possible to sequence this last decade. What is sequencing? We are taking some environment, right? So we'll take some water, I'll dab my finger in it, then we'll sequence this water and we'll find remnants of my DNA in it. Some scales fell off the fingers there, DNA remained there. And so we will isolate what we compare with the library of these DNAs, and determine what th

control pressure not through scuba gear, which is very dangerous and can’t be done for long , but so that a person, for example, would take scuba gear, and that’s it, and then he would swim underwater his whole life,

like a whale or like someone else. And this would be very convenient, because, well, here’s the problem that humans are not present in the ocean, or, yes, it’s more difficult to study because of this, yes, we don’t understand, we don’t see it. For

example, I'll tell you something like this. Here are the same chemosynthetic bacteria. But in the ocean, in recent decades, various living creatures have been found, including large living creatures about which, well, we knew little, did not understand.

There's the same krakenkin there, a giant squid. They found the beaks of these giant squids. The squid has a hard beak. The rest of the squid is soft and decaying, but its beak is hard and horny. Well, and in the stomachs

of sperm whales, in the stomachs of large fish, they found large beaks, well, large beaks. And that means the squid should be there 10 m, maybe even a little more than 10 m. But no one has ever seen these squids, because they

swim at depth and don’t rise to the surface . And only when underwater video filming was invented in the last decades , the resources were available to conduct this mass filming, and the computer capability appeared to process these enormous days, weeks,

months of filming. Filmed a deep-sea squid. Indeed, there is a ten-meter giant squid that swims in the ocean. If a person were present in the ocean, he would, of course, have seen this squid long ago, since time immemorial

, as soon as he appeared in the ocean . I really like the story about the longest living creature on the planet. This is not a blue whale, but a siffnophora. Our whale is, I think, about 30-35 meters long. I don’t

remember how many siphanophora there are now, but I think there are more. Up to 40 m, I think, right?

Yes, up to the juice and maybe even more. Typhnophora is simply a fragile creature. It was difficult to pull him out. It's like a thread, like a jellyfish tentacle. It's difficult to remove without damaging it. Yes.

Observe that life at great depths is invisible. And only with underwater photography and video filming was it possible to capture it. There's probably something else floating in the ocean that we don't know about. I can also tell you an interesting story. It has

recently become possible to sequence this last decade. What is sequencing? We are taking some environment, right? So we'll take some water, I'll dab my finger in it, then we'll sequence this water and we'll find remnants of my DNA in it. Some scales

fell off the fingers there, DNA remained there. And so we will isolate what we compare with the library of these DNAs, and determine what the person was dangling his finger there. If we take sea water from the sea and

sequence it, well, we will get information about the DNA of everyone who swam there and left pieces of themselves recently, without seeing these creatures ourselves, including mushrooms. bacteria there, well, all sorts of invisible, well, so to speak, creatures

visible only upon serious approximation. So, because our oil and gas industry is profitable, people started extracting from the sea, started drilling in the sea, and that's where they drilled. Well, they drill the ocean floor, say, 3 km to the bottom, they

drilled another 3 km of the bottom, they began to sequence this land, this soil one ocean at a time.

It turned out that a large number of fungi, bacteria, and tiny viruses live there. By some estimates, based on this drilling, the biomass of these viruses, fungi and bacteria on the seafloor exceeds the entire biomass of all other

life on Earth. The conditions are unnatural for us humans, but normal for them. And, naturally, if you learn to use this, it is the key there, including to aging, it is the key there, including to some medicines, antibiotics, something

else. Well, it seems to me that man is still only taking his first steps in all of this . Biology is also marine biology, because it is the sea that contains a much greater diversity of life than the land and

atmosphere. This is, well, the key to new discoveries and improvement of human life. We have determined for ourselves that synthesis is actively used by the biome on the seabed. Can we, for example, apply this principle to our technologies, for example,

to submarines, so that they have such energy sources? This is a very good question. And now the question of nature-like technologies is relevant and interesting. Yes, it was relevant there a century ago. And Leonardo da Vinci also made a wing like a

bat's, so that a person could fly like a bird or like a bat. Well, even the example of the wing shows that this doesn't always work, that in the end they made an airplane wing that doesn't look much like a

bird's wing, and there's some jetpack that doesn't look like anything at all. Well, maybe it looks like an octopus with a jet propulsion, but very distantly. That is, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. And, well, Chemosynthesis is probably too complicated a

story to be repeated in some effective, profitable way. We are probably talking about the extraction of some substances, the production of some substances that are biologically active substances, which can be used as medicines or something else. Ah, well,

because even we haven’t been able to create a muscle there yet. Here our robot cannot walk like a human. We cannot create a muscle like any other person.

Too many degrees of freedom are needed for this. Well, somehow we can’t even create a brain. We have created artificial intelligence , but it is still far from being a brain. And there are many natural things that we can’t do

. Energy sources are a huge problem. I’ll even put the question much more simply, yes, that means, about the energy source. We have a huge amount of energy, right?

We have, uh, a ship in the open ocean, but it keeps rocking more or less. This is a huge mass movement coming. Let's invent an engine that will convert the energy of this rocking into the energy of the

propeller's rotation or into electrical energy. And in general, we no longer need diesel engines or nuclear power plants of any kind on ships. That's it, we're just moving here on our own from the energy of the rocking. Well,

we'll bring them out a little bit there. There is no such thing. Water is generally very heavy. A cubic meter of water weighs a ton. A cubic meter of water is a small volume, it seems, but it weighs a ton. And when we have waves

moving there, currents, sea tides, especially huge masses of water starting to move, it would be good to use all this for the benefit of man, to turn the turbine. But when a storm starts, these same huge masses of water

begin to hit this turbine, destroy it, and tear the cable that runs from this turbine to the shore to use the energy there. Perhaps people will invent some approaches, some new materials, but for now it is cheaper to extract oil and gas and

use traditional energy sources, building hydroelectric power stations on rivers, than to use the energy of tides or currents.

Sounds very promising, actually. It seems to me that there is scientific interest in this and commercial interest as well.

To sum up the previous topic, am I right in concluding that we can indeed encounter a large number of some large and unexpected creatures while studying the ocean?

I think that great discoveries await us in terms of the creatures we know from the point of view of their behavior, from the point of view of their lifestyle. I can give you an example. The polar Greenland shark, which

has been known to people since, well, ancient times. It was recently discovered that she can live for 500 years. The average specimen lives there for 200-300 years, and it seems it can live for 500. It's hard to measure, it's hard to

understand. These are also some much more complex methods that have developed there in recent decades. But nevertheless, a creature similar to us lives for 500 years. When some tree lives for 500 years, let it live. But there is a shark, also a chordate, it also has

a heart, a head, and fins live there. Maybe we can somehow set up our cell there, apply some kind of Crisper technology to it.

Let's take either a genetic engineer or something. I'm not an expert in this at all, but this is interesting, right? And this was just floating near us. This shark, they caught it there, I don’t know, centuries ago.

But if, for example, we talk about whales and dolphins, can we really, if we continue to study their behavior, come to the conclusion that they have some kind of intelligence?

And what is reason? Dolphins are intelligent in some form, and perhaps they will prove more intelligent. Moreover, maybe among the dolphins there will be some really smart dolphins. But, of course, they won't jump above their heads.

And the problem with marine mammals is that if they come out to you, then you communicate with them , you look at them. If you caught it, then it somehow lives under control in the dolphinarium. But the huge mass of all these

dolphins that live in the sea, well, people don’t see them, don’t know them, don’t look after them, don’t observe them. Now, if we are on land and there are some monkeys there, you can really follow them, watch, and you will see a smart

monkey. If biologists study gorillas, yes, they understand well how gorillas behave, how they communicate.

At one time, just as the gorilla Koko learned sign language, for example, maybe a dolphin could be taught something similar, but where is that dolphin, how can one find it, catch it, and get it? We would like to

have pets, of course. Well, how can I say, not domestic, but service animals, I guess I should say, animals in the sea, because there are no people in the sea. And if some shaggy, hairy, woolly agent of ours is there, he will tell everything.

Yes, he will do it, and tell it, and show it. Well, this is a huge step forward. That is, this person will stretch his hands straight into the ocean. Imagine, a dog, but it would dive there, like a dolphin,

well, at least 100 meters and do something and swim. It's mind-boggling to think about such possibilities. But this is not the case. How could people not try? People tried to tame dolphins there. for both military and civilian purposes. Well, to

some extent, we managed to do this, but it seems very limited, considering that in general animals have come up with mechanisms for how to stay at great depths, that is, blood pressure, for example, yes, I think there are some other solutions. We can also

assume that on some other planets or satellites within the solar system where there are oceans, for example Europa there could also potentially be life there, perhaps even in some complex forms.

Well, to be honest, no one knows, and you can fantasize about it and fantasize logically and reasonably, but everything will be decided by experiment, everything will be decided by reality.

The study of the real world, like oceanography or space physics or particle physics, is the study of the real world. Here is mathematics, it is the study of abstraction.

If you have constructed some kind of logical scheme in mathematics that is consistent, then it is correct. Yes.

Sometimes mathematics comes out into the real world. For example, epileptic curves. It's just some kind of abstraction, and suddenly we make cryptography, encryption, electronic money out of them, and the abstraction becomes reality. And it works, right? But if in Ecinalogy,

for example, you come up with the idea that there is a current here or that a species behaves this way, everything is logical, fine, but until you observe this current, record it or record the species, it is all just a fabrication that has

no relation to reality. Unfortunately, we can’t measure everything, we can’t see everything. And that is why we very often, and even, I would say, constantly wander in the dark, in conjecture. In the case of space physics and the physics of the

smallest particles, there are also brilliant visions when our mathematical apparatus predicts the Hicksian bason. We predicted that there is such an element. And here he is. The same thing with life on other planets, on the satellites of some planets, I think the

satellites of Jupiter, which have oceans and ice cover, but it is not made of water, but of methane or something else, but also. What are people looking for? People are looking for something similar to them. Well, there are carbon

compounds, similar to protein compounds. Again, this is my personal opinion, but my science is much closer to practice. And for now this also looks a bit like fortune telling. Although it is very difficult, I have great respect and great

esteem for these people who study this. But this is a completely different approach to life. I was at a conference last year , a large international conference dedicated to polar sciences . There were a lot of people from

different countries. And there was polar meteorology, polar oceanology, polar biology, and something else. And there were two sections that were very different from all the others. This was a study of the processes on these frozen satellites of Jupiter. Yes.

And the second thing that happened on Earth was that there were periods when the Earth was almost completely covered with ice. Snowball Earth, that's the name, Earth, Snowball.

What happened then? And it's like it looks like those planets that are covered in ice. In the case of the Earth, uh, ancient there, the ancient history of the Earth, this, at least, has some evidence base. That is, it’s

all very disconnected, it’s all very much in the realm of assumptions, it may be like this, and it may not be like that, but we think that’s how it is, and no one else understands it.

Therefore, actually, there is no one to object to , yes. It is impossible to measure and impossible to check . And in the case of these potential processes, uh, and physical processes, and potential life on other planets, but it just

looked like, well, I don’t know, a meeting of ufologists, excuse me, but they are basing it on something, but the evidence, like, the level of evidence directly in oceanography would not stand up to any criticism. There's nowhere to go here. And what would I say?

I can think of a business, an ideal business, where you freeze corpses and then revive them. You are being paid money, it will not be unfrozen during your lifetime. Nobody will check at all whether you froze them correctly or

incorrectly. If they don’t revive them, it means, well, the technology didn’t work, and you’re getting the money now. Perfect.

It's about the same. Well, such a business is already actively functioning, yes. And how is it possible that the person who came up with this was so smart?

Well, they were probably inspired by Futurama, where Fry was frozen. Exactly. Yes. By the way, I wonder what came first: the business or the freeze?

Well, I think business probably did emerge earlier, but it didn’t work as well back then as it does now. Now, they say, there is some progress there. Freezing is getting better and better, yes, but it’s still impossible to test

. And maybe we're freezing it wrong. Well, in general, I would like to. Of course I would like to. In general, I believe that the main goal for any scientist is to reach the truth, to more clearly understand the real picture of

reality, the picture of the world. Here. And without experiment, without observation, this is impossible. Someone still has to make an assumption in order to prove or disprove it later.

Yes, of course not. This is a whole world of these studies. I will say again that I have great respect for these scientists and their conclusions. This is a big deal, a huge number of people are doing it. But still, you

feel a distance between, that is, how could it happen that during your lifetime you will be able to figure out whether there really is life there? Or does it just seem that way, or does this life have a

different form altogether and there are other, I don’t know, molecules, substances, but most likely not. There is information circulating online that the Golfstan current is at its weakest in 1,600 years. And we see all the signs of a possible

climate collapse. Is this true or an exaggeration? This is a very good question and a very good topic, and it really comes up in the media all the time. And I would say that there is the topic of global warming,

microplastics and a third topic: will the Gulf Stream stop and when will this happen.

Any problem needs to be looked at with the utmost effort to understand and comprehend what is happening. And in the case of the Gulf Stream, this is entirely possible to do, unlike nuclear particle physics and a quantum computer. So, we have, uh,

different currents in the ocean. And basically these currents, so to speak, do not change their depth. If our water flows from above, yes, this means that it is the lightest in the water column , it has the lowest density. And

so we have, I don’t know, a 100-meter layer of water there, from the surface to a depth of 100 meters. This means that all the water that is below 100 meters is heavier, and that’s why it ended up at the bottom. And this water on the

surface, it continues to flow along the surface, because in order for it to go to some depth, it needs to, well, somehow increase its heaviness. And this happens in few places in the world's oceans. But still, something is

happening somewhere. And, in fact, this is happening intensively in two places. This is the North Atlantic Ocean and, uh, the Southern Ocean, that is, the waters around Antarctica. What's happening? There the water cools down a lot, the cold water

becomes heavier, just as hot air rises up, cold air sinks down, and so does water.

Cold water goes down. And in the polar regions it’s cold, some water comes there, it cools down, and goes down. And why, for example, in the Arctic Ocean, does the water not sink? It's even colder there.

But the ocean there is structured in such a way that a freshwater cap forms on top of it, 100 meters deep. The upper 100 meters are the northern ice of this ocean. They have low salinity because a large amount of

water flows into the ocean before the river, where the ice melts, and when fresh water, fresher water, cools, it cannot sink to great depths. It goes down there to a depth of, I don’t know, 20 m and that’s it, and it stays there

and then turns into ice. But in the North Atlantic the water is salty, and it goes down to a depth of a kilometer, 1.5 km. and thus feeds the deep waters. And if a freshwater cap suddenly arrives in the North Atlantic, then

the water in the North Atlantic will stop sinking. The deep ocean movement in the North Atlantic will stop. If something similar happens in Antarctica, and fresh water also starts flowing in for some reason, then everything in Antarctica will stop, and

our climate processes will be completely restructured. We don't know what this will lead to. You can simulate one situation, or another. It can be logically confirmed that it will be like that , like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, when everything there froze,

changes occurred in the atmosphere and the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. We can say that, on the contrary, the greenhouse effect will increase there, because the heat will stop escaping and igniting into the depths of the ocean and everything, on

the contrary, will be warmer. It would be as if an experiment could be conducted. If this happens, then we will know. And everything else is just guesswork. But perhaps such situations have already happened on Earth, and we can, uh, remember how it was

before. Yes, that's the only way to look at it. A similar situation almost happened on Earth quite recently, but the whole world slept through it. And if he hadn’t overslept, I’ll tell you now how he overslept and why. The northern frozen ocean is

connected by currents to the North Atlantic, where, in fact, our water sinks. And, ah, in the Arctic Ocean there is such a current system. There's this place in the Canadian Arctic where, uh, fresh water collects. Oh, and there's the Beaufort Gyre

, well, it's like a ring-shaped circular current that's designed in such a way that it draws pressurized water into itself.

And the stronger this current spins, the more pressurized water collects in it . The circular current is driven by atmospheric circulation. There is a large atmospheric vortex there . And so it happened, meaning that since the early 2000s, the atmospheric vortex

has become stronger and stronger every year. Yes. And this oceanic vortex sucked in more and more fresh water. Yes. And it was obvious to everyone, the scientists who were working on this, that a year would come when the atmospheric vortex would weaken, the

oceanic vortex would also weaken, and this would dump water, and this water would go to the North Atlantic and there could turn into a freshwater cap that would stop, well, not the Gulf Stream, but the subsidence right north of the

Gulf Stream. What's worth saying here is that when they talk about the Gulf Stream stopping, they don't mean the Gulf Stream itself, but rather the lowering of the waters immediately north of the Gulf Stream, where the waters are

cold. But because the Gulf Stream is nearby, it all gets confused and that's why they talk about the Gulf Stream stopping. And indeed, the year came when the whirlwind relaxed and began to throw into this water . And that was 2021. What was the world

busy with? Vaccinations against Covid. And this great news did not receive any coverage in the media, in the press, although scientists followed it very closely . But everything resolved itself along the way. That's it , this little cap arrived in a very

relaxed state to the North Atlantic. The descent of the water slowed down a little there , but nothing supernatural or critical happened. And so an experiment was conducted . While this is an experiment, well, a natural experiment, until it has been

set up, you can model absolutely anything . This shows, this speaks about our level, as it were, about the depth of our understanding of the processes in the ocean. And there’s one more thing I want to say on

this matter. Humanity is very mercantile and counts money and cares about its standard of living during its short life. I want to live my 100 years well. If possible, we will think about the future.

But if we still don’t have the opportunity, then we will immediately stop jumping. Well, I also want to think about children and grandchildren.

Well, about children, about grandchildren. But we still don’t think that far ahead. And when we think about our grandchildren, we are also thinking about ourselves . We think about grandchildren when we are already many years old and everything seems different.

Well, for example, there is the problem of ocean pollution, yes, including microplastics. Well, if the problem of ocean pollution really affected human life, the quality of life, then people would come up with something and stop it. Here in our country, the problem of

the spread of COVID has begun to greatly affect people's lives. Everyone went into quarantine, got vaccines, and introduced rules. The entire world introduced unprecedented rules within a few months, within six months, because people were afraid that this would harm their lives and

health. If the spread of microplastics were harmful to life and health, people would one day or one year refuse this microplastic, and they would come up with something else instead of plastic.

Well, it seems to me that humanity is always waiting for some kind of critical point.

Yes, it’s not that it’s waiting, it’s just living, enjoying life, because it’s all about money, yes, here are the climate changes, yes, that means that what is happening here, man really did cause small climate changes, but 1 1° in 100 years, small changes, but

nevertheless unprecedentedly large in the history of the Earth. Never in the history of the earth has there been such an active agent as man. Volcanoes appear there too , but at a speed of, I don’t know, tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of

years. And over the course of 100 years, man has burned so much that the balance has changed a little, it has warmed up a little by 1°. And, uh, countries have different attitudes towards this too . It's not like every

country in the world is saying, "1°C of warming is really bad, and we should try to avoid it, try to stop it." Some countries say: "It will even be better for us." The pros that await us will outweigh the cons.

Fine. So, uh, in 100 years we raised the temperature by 1°, we made such a contribution. Most likely, we will make some other contribution in the 21st century. Does this affect, for example, the secrets of glaciers in the Arctic? It is

always cold in the Arctic in winter. And in winter, the ice in the Arctic remains virtually unchanged.

That is, in the summer our ice melts, and in the winter it grows, like an accordion.

Less in summer, more in winter. And in winter it has changed by 7% in just 30 years, and in summer it has become one and a half to two times less. In summer, the reduction in ice area is colossal. And

we see this when we work in the Arctic. Somewhere the summer ice edge has retreated there by 500 km, 600 km. This distance is the same as from Moscow to St. Petersburg. This is a very long distance. And this increase

of 1° or, say, half a degree since the seventies and eighties led to the ice retreating, well, by hundreds of kilometers, and there was one and a half times less of it. We don't feel 1° for 100 years, right? And

we feel very well the retreat of ice by 500 km in 10 years. And this retreat of the ice triggered a kind of feedback loop, as you know, the domino effect.

Our ice is white, it reflects solar energy. And yes, the Albeda there is 0.9, yes, 90% of the solar energy goes back into the atmosphere, reflected, like from a mirror. And our water is sea water, dark, blue, it

absorbs 90, the same 90%. Accordingly, if we suddenly have less ice, then more solar energy is absorbed, it becomes even warmer, there is even less ice, and even more solar energy is absorbed. And this mechanism began to work really

actively, began to be included in, well, the last 20 years, the beginning of the 21st century. And it was precisely at the beginning of the 21st century that we experienced a sharp reduction in the area of ​​sea ice.

Unfortunately, we only know about the area of ​​sea ice since 1979, because only satellites can give us information about the area of ​​sea ice.

Now, if somewhere in the 15th century or, I don’t know, in 1912, some navigator reached the edge of the ice in some place, this doesn’t tell us anything at all about where this ice edge continues and what the total area of ​​the

ice cover is in the Arctic in this vast region. Therefore, there is almost no information. And since 1979, when satellites were launched, this ice has been easily visible; its area can be calculated . And people, again, when this mechanism was launched, well, around

2010-2015, people thought: "That's it, this domino is about to fall. Now we will have an ice-free Arctic in 2020, 2030. That's it, everything will shift and the greenhouse effect will intensify there and all that." But no, that didn't happen.

Perhaps the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer, again, during the warm period of the year, or almost ice-free, there by the year 2050. There is no talk now that there will be more ice in the Arctic, because the

air temperature is still rising and there is no indication that it will begin to decrease, unless the ice flow stops there. But there are no reliable prerequisites for this either. But the ice is now stable; that is, it was shrinking sharply

around 2010-2015, and now it's been stable for about 10 years. There was no scientific consensus on this issue 10 years ago. Now, after the fact, they are explaining it somehow. But they didn't predict it back then. Here. But in general, does the Arctic melt

pose any potential risks to humanity or to specific countries ? There is the issue of sea level rise. It does not increase with the melting of sea ice, because it floats in water and, due to the Archimedes force, it pushes up exactly as much as would be required

if it melted. Sea level rise is caused by the influx of land glaciers. This is additional water from the huge glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland. And the second factor in sea level rise is the thermal expansion of water. So, if

we heat any object, it becomes bigger, right? If we heat the handle there, it will stretch a little. The upper 2 km of the ocean are warming up, and they are also becoming a little higher. And this is

comparable. These are practically equal contributions of thermal expansion of sea water and contributions of additional, uh, additional water from the melting of glaciers.

Well, our sea level is rising. But again, it grows slowly. And in general, rich countries will be able to adapt to this.

They have money, they have the ability to build coastal protection structures, yes, what can you come up with here, coastal protection structures, right?

Here in Dubai they wash palm trees, and either there in St. Petersburg or there, I don’t know, in Japan, where the land is expensive. Well, please, can we make a reclaimed island? And here the question of funds arises. Or if

your Maldives or, I don’t know, New York is flooded, yes, they will 100% come up with a coastal protection structure and nothing will be flooded. It’s possible, I don’t know, to put at least 3 m. And that means,

uh, how much will the sea level rise in 100 years. Well, that's the average forecast, about 1 m, right? Well, we can build a meter in 100 years with our technology. And poor countries, of course, or those with large low-lying coastlines, and

especially poor countries, they will, of course, suffer greatly. They don't have money for this and never will. And some small islands where 15,000 people live, but only if someone chips in and gives them money. Well, they do n't have the resources, if you think about it sensibly,

15,000 people want huge amounts of money so that their island doesn't get flooded. Well, excuse me, please move. Well, it’s a cruel, but unfortunately, inevitable reality.

Well, the forecast for 1 m is not so bad, actually. It seems that, if we take into account all the factors of Albeda, the secrets of land glaciers, it seems that by the sensations, yes, there should be more than 1 m of

increase. It's important to talk about numbers everywhere, because very often people, when entering into some kind of discussion, operate with the words more, less, because they don't know the numbers and don't want to learn them or can't. And the

more confidently you say that more is better than less your opponent has, the more likely you are to win the argument. But in reality, well, that is, numbers decide everything.

If the sea level were to rise by a meter per year, it would be a disaster for humans, and they would actually have to solve this problem, right? What if it's 100 meters in years? Well, when will these 100 years pass, these

killer waves? Do they really exist? And could they pose a threat to any coastal cities?

What is a killer wave in this strict sense? - when we have some unrest in the sea and the waves there are, say, of a certain height on average, and suddenly they add up, enter into resonance, and a single, but

very high wave appears, several times higher there than, uh, the average wave height. And if you have waves that are 5 cm or 15 cm high, and they form a wave that is half a meter high , this is also a killer wave, but it is

unnoticeable, uninteresting, and does not pose a threat to anyone. And if you have waves that are 5 meters high and they add up to a height of 15 meters, then this is, of course, a big problem. And historically there have been many

accounts of killer waves. Some died and left no evidence, but there were some sailors who talked about these waves, but no one believed them. And there was no research, no understanding of the problem of killer waves, until video recordings of killer waves appeared, until

satellites appeared that began to record these killer waves. And now we know that, on average, one killer wave forms in the world's oceans once a day . The world ocean is huge.

This is most likely one wave of the killer, no one will notice it. And, most likely, no one there will notice a single wave of killers for years . But sometimes they do hit ships, sometimes they hit ports and cause destruction. But this is,

frankly speaking, such an exotic event. And again, the question here is that ships are simply not ready, and that is why they crash. But if, for example, they make ships so strong that they can withstand killer waves, what is the chance of this happening there?

Well, in fact, if you sail out on a ship, there is a risk of drowning due to a killer wave.

Absolutely, yes, if you are at sea, there is a risk of drowning from a killer wave. But the question is, is it higher than when the plane you're flying on crashes, or the car you're driving crashes, resulting in a

fatal accident, somewhere, or you just suddenly experience, I don't know, sudden death. Yes, the same thing happens. It's a question of probability, a question of numbers. And a killer wave is not a natural disaster that poses any serious threat to a person,

either as an individual or to humanity as a whole. What is a red tide? Red tide is a case of nature poisoning itself. There are different types of algae living in the sea, and some of these algae release toxic

substances as by-products of their life processes. And in a normal situation, the concentration of these algae is low, and the concentration of toxic substances they release is also low. And they are simply mixed, well, practically without a trace in the sea. But it

happens that, as a result of certain conditions, these algae become very comfortable, well-off, and they begin to multiply instantly. Well, uh, the cycle of algae, of phytoplankton in the ocean, is very fast, because they are small, they divide quickly, they reproduce quickly. There

, I don’t know, rabbits seem to reproduce quickly, but still, in some places it takes weeks, months, and in the case of this plankton, it takes hours, days. And it happens that favorable conditions develop there for a week, these algae

reproduce wildly, their concentration becomes enormous, they begin to secrete toxins, they themselves die because, firstly, they have eaten all the food and they begin to starve. Secondly, they released these toxins and when they die, these toxins are sometimes released, and we all

die from these toxins. Fish, dolphins, people, if they are nearby, they can also suffer. There have been fatalities from eating shellfish. For example, the sea creatures that absorbed these toxins did not die. The mollusks themselves cope with this, but people

die. Bathers. There was a well-known incident recently in Kamchatka, on the Nalaktyrsky beach, a lot of animals died, and people who were swimming there were poisoned . There were various theories, including that it was some kind of anthropogenic, human pollution, but it

turned out to be simply a red tide. There are places where red tide occurs regularly, particularly in the USA and Japan. And there is historical evidence, from two hundred years ago, three hundred years ago, when people suffered and died from poisoning.

So a person can die, right? Yes. But generally he dies if he eats contaminated shellfish. That is, if you had a red tide, for example, a month ago, the shellfish accumulated toxins in themselves, they have not yet come out of them, and you ate a

large amount of them, and you are poisoned. In general, it is easy to get poisoned by filter-feeding animals and mollusks. I myself was seriously poisoned once; I think I ate scallops and got seriously poisoned. The main thing when you're on a ship is to avoid getting

poisoned, I think. Of course, you are less protected on a ship. In general, the Red Tide is also still an ordinary episodic event.

And where they are clean, people know about it and there is simply a warning about it. Is it true that in the 20th century they tried to divert Siberian rivers to the south?

Yes, there were such initiatives. In fact, rivers are much more predictable than the sea. Yes, there is much less water in the rivers, they flow along channels, and we can build a channel and direct the river where we need it. In general,

we are building hydroelectric power plants, we are building canals, both shipping and irrigation. All this activity greatly improves agriculture.

And in some cases this is useful and in demand. There is, of course, excess water that no one needs. There are huge rivers there that flow into the Arctic, and there is no need for this fresh water . But if it were redirected to

Central Asia, then something could be grown there. It's warm there, but there's not enough water. And they did it in some form. All this requires preparation and correct forecasting, which is not always possible. And in the case of the Oral Sea,

this is an example where people simply did not predict what would happen to the Oral Sea. Two rivers feeding the Oral Sea were taken apart for irrigation.

Much less water is reaching the Aral Sea. Well, and there it significantly decreased in size.

Actually, it remained in a small form, divided into several reservoirs, but for people and for the fishing industry, which was active, the active eagle fish was on the Rolskoe Sea, it all ended for people. It ended, actually, well, with big

problems. Well, uh, now this idea periodically pops up in the media that it’s also possible to transfer Siberian waters to the south, but, uh, there are no fundamental restrictions . Indeed, it is possible.

The question is how much does it cost and who will pay for it. We cannot predict all the consequences for us, but some small volume of water could, in principle, be diverted, because the flow of Siberian rivers is increasing, due to

global warming, sediment is increasing , and the flow of Siberian rivers is gradually increasing. And this small surplus there , which will not greatly affect the overall flow, but at the same time will be a very significant amount of water for Central

Asia, which, in principle, could be diverted. But how much is this? Everything needs to be calculated. Again, here we need to say a little less, but rather give figures about how much it costs. build canals that are quite far across borders, so that

countries can agree on who will use them and who will pay for them. It seems that those countries are not rich enough to build all this. And when it was a united Soviet Union, well, potentially it was possible, but now, it

seems to me, politically and economically it is simply not practical. If, for example, the United Arab Emirates bordered the Orenburg region, and the United Arab Emirates were the same listening region as they are now, and for some reason they bordered the

Orenburg region. Let's listen. We would, of course, be sure that we would build and sell, and everyone would be happy and satisfied. But here the situation is different.

Now, as far as I remember, in Uzbekistan, I think, there are problems with fresh water. Yes.

Due to global warming, Central Asia is becoming a more arid region, and there are major problems with water. And besides, the population there has grown very strongly, especially in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan too. But Tajikistan is a more mountainous country, there

are streams, precipitation in the mountains and glaciers. Uzbekistan is a much more deserted country, and there are very big problems there. Well, the population in Kazakhstan has also grown . In general, there is also a problem with water. There is plenty of water on earth.

And getting clean water is not difficult. Everyone knows the mechanism. You evaporate water, condense it, and you get, yes, a distillate. You get clean water. The question of cost. That is, how much energy would need to be invested to ensure that

seawater was abundant everywhere in Uzbekistan, including the Caspian Sea. Please, evaporate it and that's it. And everything will be fine. The Persian Gulf countries are rich and have a large number of desalination plants that simply evaporate seawater. There is also a second

method, reverse osmosis, yes, it also has its pros and cons, but in general, the price of this issue is known.

Well, you can tow icebergs from Antarctica. This is also, how to say, technically possible small icebergs, but this is also, apparently, more expensive than simply evaporating water. The problem is that poor countries don't have access to water, and you can go

buy a bottle of the same drinking water in the store, yes, but it's just expensive. If these are the Emirates, they can build themselves a seawater desalination plant , they have the money. And if it is some poor African

country, it cannot build a seawater distillation plant. And people are deprived of access to water. They have very little money. They don’t have enough food, normal food, high-calorie food, food rich in various minerals, food with the necessary ingredients

. Well, there is not enough money for water. And the second problem is the frequency of water. There is no cheaper way than desalinating water, yes, than evaporation, and there is no cheap way to purify water. We also have the problem that a

huge amount of our fresh water is polluted and unfit for consumption. And it may not even be suitable for agriculture there . It's absolutely impossible to imagine that we would install a desalination plant in Uzbekistan that would take water from the Caspian Sea,

evaporate it there, condense it, and use it to water plants there through a wide channel, like a river.

This will cost an exorbitant amount of money. And if they came up with some cheap way to purify water from salt or from various contaminants, well, that would be a huge step forward. It is also clear how to purify water, but it is expensive, rather

expensive on a mass scale. Therefore, people simply drink poor-quality water, dirty water in poor countries, or simply have a shortage of water for drinking, and, of course, for watering plants, for agriculture.

But in the future, could a problem with drinking water arise for even more countries and people?

Yes, and it is a question of money and population. If your country has twice as many people, you need to install twice as many desalination plants or buy twice as much fresh water from somewhere else . But it seems that humanity is short of food and water

. But it’s true that there are poor countries, rich countries, and the standard of living is growing more or less everywhere , somewhere faster, somewhere slower, but everywhere people live better than 100 years ago. And there, access to

fresh water has probably improved, on average, as a percentage. But the number of people has certainly worsened. There are simply more people. But this is really a huge technical problem that cannot be solved . How can we cheaply desalinate water

and how can we cheaply purify water? This is roughly how we can cheaply obtain energy from the rolling of a sea vessel. Here we can formulate a number of very simple problems that can be explained to a first-grader, but the

greatest minds of our humanity cannot solve them. Nowadays, there is increasing talk that the ocean is polluted with microplastics. How serious is the threat to the environment and humans?

We don't really know very well. Definition of plastic in the world's oceans. There is a big problem, that according to estimates, the amount of plastic that enters the world's oceans every year from rivers is much greater than the amount of

plastic that floats on the surface. That is, it disappears somewhere. But maybe people are just counting incorrectly, assessing incorrectly, because plastic, how can you even measure plastic in the ocean? The net is pulled behind the ship for some

specific distance, I don’t know, 3 km, and then everything that the net has collected is taken apart, and the plastic is pulled out of it. But if plankton, bird feathers, wood chips, I don’t know, ship paint, whatever, are raked in there, and when it’s all

small, it all looks the same as microplastic. It is very difficult to understand where there is microplastic and where there is not. And this is very labor-intensive work. This liquid, yes, it’s like that, you have to pull out the snot,

jellyfish, and all that stuff from it. And so that she doesn’t pick up small pieces of microplastic. Until you figure it all out.

One sample was processed, a lot of time was spent on this. If microplastics fall to the bottom, you take out a lump of dirt and need to somehow wash it so that the smallest particles of microplastics remain in the city. And it's quite difficult.

And if it is sand, how do you wash it? If microplastic particles are comparable to these pebbles in size. In general, this is why we have very little knowledge of the concentration of microplastics on the seabed. On the surface of the water it’s poor, in the depths of the water it’s

very bad, on the seabed it’s completely bad. That's why our balance doesn't close . It seems like a lot is coming in, but where is it located, where does it sink, and where does it accumulate? Here.

Can it accumulate in marine animals ? Of course, it accumulates as microplastics from marine animals, but they die from it and fall to the bottom. Here too there is a question, a percentage, a question of numbers.

This means how many marine animals die from disease, from being eaten by other marine animals, how many marine animals die from microplastics. Indeed, there are some whales or birds there, entangled in bags or nets, they evoke the saddest impressions and

feelings. But if we put emotions aside, it would be good to calculate, if it is possible, of course, with some certainty, how many birds die simply from disease and how many birds become entangled in microplastics. As I understand it, there is no evidence

yet, so to speak, that microplastics are causing serious disruption to the global system. Some regional, local ones, it’s quite possible . Here. And the second problem is that microplastics pass through the esophagus and are excreted, or the creature dies. There

are problems with toxic substances; they accumulate in the tissues. Dissolved substances, toxic substances accumulate in the tissues, and suspended substances or floating substances, as it were, pass through the esophagus. Now there are some studies that show that plastic,

small plastic granules, there, not granules, particles were found in the blood, there, in breast milk, in the brain there, in general everywhere, everywhere, everywhere the brain is a teaspoon.

I'm not an expert in this, but my colleagues say that these works, well, it's as if these methods of detecting microplastic particles are at the limit of their accuracy. That is, when you have microplastic floating in a capillary, it is the size of a red blood cell. How do

you distinguish a red blood cell from a piece of plastic or anything else? That is, there is no reliable understanding that this is actually plastic, that it can be measured and extrapolated in this way. How does it penetrate? That is, if it is

very small and penetrates the brain, then maybe there is no problem if some molecule has penetrated the brain.

Before microplastics, there was sand everywhere, and it turns out that small molecules of sand should also penetrate the brain, the blood, breast milk, and everywhere else.

And they don’t interfere there, we do n’t die from it. And if people really started getting sick and dying, even from microplastics, like with COVID, this problem would be solved.

Well, there are PM2 particles with pono, which penetrate into our blood vessels precisely because of their small size and harm us.

If it is truly proven that some microplastic particles are harmful to us and cause harm to our health, incomparable to the probability of a killer wave occurring in the ocean or an accidental death occurring there, but comparable to, well, some

serious diseases from which people die, malaria, for example, well, people will start to fight this, of course.

I have a blog and a Telegram channel called the ocean around us. The link is in the description.

Subscribe. I talk about a lot of things there , including what I'm talking about today. And I once wrote a post about microplastics. That's basically what I told you today. And then a person appeared in the comments and

started writing: "Horror, horror, alarm, here's a seal entangled in microplastics. Microplastics are getting into the brain. And anyway, you understand where this is all leading." And he writes everything in a hysterical tone and with some hints. And I think: “Well, it’s

impossible to talk to this person.” I wrote him a couple of comments in response, saying that you were exaggerating. And he responded: "Horror, horror, alarm. You're all lying.

Don't you understand? There's microplastic in there, we're all going to die. But any news can be presented so emotionally and linked to some obviously positive or obviously negative aspects, like the poor baby tulni that got tangled up in a plastic bag, and as if you're

right, but that doesn't make you right. And the second problem is that it's impossible to talk to such people, because, as we know, a wise man can answer any question a fool asks, but a fool can ask so many questions that 100

wise men would never be able to answer them. That's about it. People are taking it en masse. But, unfortunately, uh, unfortunately, there's a lot of that. Thank God, it seems to me that we are slowly moving away from the

public perception that humans have had no impact on climate change. This was also the case 10-15 years ago that Well, until now Donald Trump says it had no impact and that it's all exaggerated.

Donald Trump says a lot, he's an old man, maybe he has his own opinions, but I think any reasonable person who looks into this issue will see that there's a consensus among scientists who study this professionally. And there are

explainable processes there. There was a slight impact, a slight change, and that's how it all happened. There are answers to all those traditional questions: what about the Ice Age? What about everything else? Well, the rate of change there is very fast. The Ice

Age is slowly approaching, but now it's warmed up at an unprecedented rate. And anyone who wants to understand this, well, they will certainly understand and think so. But it seems to me, maybe I live in some kind of

wonderful world, that people who believe that climate change is caused by humans are making it up; I think this is becoming a thing of the past.

But what isn't making it up? What isn't making it up is people trying to use it for their own purposes.

Climate change. To use, like this guy in the microplastics commendations, to tie climate change to the locomotive, which is supposedly 100% harmful, absolutely harmful, although not everyone agrees with this, that it's like climate change, and that's why it's being done, as I

said, it's also a huge business. There was a green agenda related to alternative energy, renewable energy. Well, for example, the production of wind turbines or solar panels. All the countries get together and say: "Yes, it's getting warmer, it's bad, of course, it's

bad, something needs to be done." Well, let's make wind turbines and solar panels. By the way, you can buy wind turbines and solar panels here in France. We've already developed them, thought of them, and are making them, and no

one else is doing it. Or here in China, or here somewhere else, or in Russia, or again, rich countries have imposed their agenda on the poor.

Great, but no matter how much this cancels out climate change, all the countries that can afford it are spinning all this in my direction. I think that Donald Trump means, I'll take the liberty of interpreting Donald Trump's words, that where the

climate agenda is leading politicians is not what should be done. Alexander Alexandrovich, thank you very much for this podcast. Thank you very much for the interesting way you talk about your subject of study. It was truly fascinating. Are there

any social networks that our listeners should subscribe to? Gleb, thank you for inviting us. We had a really great conversation. Regarding social networks, I can and want to advertise, of course, my book, which is called this unknown ocean. I want to advertise my

Telegram channel, The Ocean Around Us. In fact, I have a whole collection on my Telegram channel . There is a Telegram channel called Zoo and Ivory, which makes collections of popular science channels in Russian. Very cool channels on

biology, earth sciences, physics, and various other branches of science. And so, I can recommend this I found myself in a collection of earth sciences and biology . It's really cool, I read it with great pleasure.

Super. We'll leave it in the description. Does it ever happen that you read the comments under the episodes with you? Of course it does . It usually happens with episodes that some basic topics rise to the top in the first few days, and then they

stay there forever. Yeah. So, a few days makes sense, but I'm certainly ready to respond to some comments.

I'm just saying this so that dear listeners can leave their comments. It will be interesting to see, as we just learned, that Alexander Alexandrovich might respond to some of your comments. Thank you very much for watching this episode to the end. Be sure to

follow our guest on social media , and stay tuned for our future episodes. Bye.