Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Share
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 502
    Points : 489
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Rmf on Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:38 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:Preventing global warming is in Russia's interest since with it we will see the Leningrad be flooded and the Caspian dry out, not to mention increased chances of hurricanes on the Pacific coast.
    russia can reroute northern rivers pechora into volga and caspian to maintain its levels.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Global warming

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Jan 30, 2017 11:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    water expands when it is heated... if the sea gets too warm a lot of the life in the sea will die and much of siberia could become flooded... it could become a large inland sea...



    progress in robots and remotely operated vehicles could do the same...


    Actually , what you arguing about?

    The global warming is a jackpot for russia, without the slightest doubt.
    if the arctic ocean flood szberia then there will be a lot of new shipping line, on a liveable area, more rain during the ezar, more grain and forest, higher temperature, s better weather and so on.


    Practicaly all population center is out from the flood ,except st pteresburg, but it is waz better than in the US or China.

    And the robot remark is imply nonsens. Sorry, but it is.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:57 am

    Actually , what you arguing about?

    Arguing?

    What I am saying is that adapting the Russian economy to a new climate... even a more mild one will cost money and effect a lot of industries in a negative way.

    It is not going to be a jackpot for anyone.

    The land area of Europe and Asia where Russia is situated means extremes of temperature... both hot and cold... that is just weather.

    In comparison New Zealand is surrounded by water which moderates the temperature range we experience so it does not get really hot or really cold.

    For Russia it is surrounded by land which heats up more and cools down more than water does so its weather will always be extreme.

    And the robot remark is imply nonsens. Sorry, but it is.

    There are plenty of extreme places in Russia where normal work is not practical... whether it is too cold or too radioactive or whatever.

    Their newest armour has options for remote or telecontrol. That sort of equipment will only become more common in other areas... Large greenhouses with robotic farming systems are an examples of an application of such technologies.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Project Canada

    Posts : 613
    Points : 620
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 29
    Location : Canada

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Project Canada on Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:45 pm





    Im not sure how accurate the picture is but its scary to know how a large portion of Russia will be flooded in the event of a sea level rise., but a good question is., is climate change (along with sea level rise) even real?? Isn't whats happening in the past years just a normal fluctuations in the Earth's climate?

    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 321
    Points : 330
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:42 am

    kvs wrote:Garry is making a very important point about costs.   The sinking of St. Petersburg in the next century with 2 meters or more of
    sea level rise is not going to be a small cost to counteract.   Yeah, they can build flood gates.  But that is a major infrastructure project.
    Also, you can't build them to the current Dutch and British standards since those constructions were based on the wrong estimates.
    Building a structure that can stave off 2 m of sea level rise (including the storm surge which can bring this to over 4 m) has not
    been done before.
    The structure already exists and is quite impressive:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Dam
    Perhaps what would be needed in worst case scenario of sea level rise is to expand it (make it taller).

    Svyatoslavich

    Posts : 321
    Points : 330
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:46 am

    Project Canada wrote:but a good question is., is climate change (along with sea level rise) even real?? Isn't whats happening in the past years just a normal fluctuations in the Earth's climate?
    That is a good question. I hardly know about this subject, but what I've found is that there is hardly agreement on this issue. Only the big media hammers out this issue as a truth that can't be put into question, mostly for political reasons.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3026
    Points : 3151
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs on Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:05 am

    Project Canada wrote:



    Im not sure how accurate the picture is but its scary to know how a large portion of Russia will be flooded in the event of a sea level rise., but a good question is., is climate change (along with sea level rise) even real?? Isn't whats happening in the past years just a normal fluctuations in the Earth's climate?

    How can it be normal when humans are pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of this amount
    (average of around 600 million tons per year) and since we have not had any increase in volcanic activity over the last few million years, and longer,
    any CO2 they spew is in long term equilibrium. So the increase in CO2 from 280 ppmv before the industrial revolution to 405 ppmv today is due to humans.

    CO2 and H2O are the greenhouse "tag team". H2O is a vapour and not a dry gas so it is easily removed from the atmosphere by condensation.
    CO2 is a dry gas and a strong IR absorber that even with "only" 300-400 ppmv concentrations has a large impact on the radiative transfer budget
    of the atmosphere. Thanks to CO2, H2O can reside in the atmosphere. If all the CO2 was removed, water would condense and freeze on the surface
    and the oceans would freeze as well. Earth would become an ice Hell. Removing CO2 would drop the global mean temperature by 18 degrees Celsius
    which would put the global mean temperature well below 0 C and the freezing point of water.

    CH4 (methane) is another potent IR absorbing gas but its concentrations are under 2 ppmv so it does not dominate the system. But we have vast amounts
    of organic carbon stored in the cryosphere (permafrost, clathrates) that is being released as both CH4 and CO2 as the atmosphere and the oceans warm.
    This natural pool of carbon is being released unnaturally by humans which will help to screw over humans royally.

    It is unfortunate that climate science has been smeared by corporate funded shills the whoring MSM which trots out "skeptics" as if they were experts
    and not cranks. So in the minds of the masses climate science is some super uncertain thing and everything is about variability. In the dynamical
    system consisting of the oceans and the atmosphere, variability is not a process. Variability is not some arbitrarily changing system characteristic.
    There is the chaos associated with nonlinear equations of motion (the Navier-Stokes equations). Then there is variability associated with energy storage
    in the system depending on cloud albedo and chemical composition. People think climate science is weather forecasting. It is nothing of the sort. Climate
    science is about the energy balance of the ocean-atmosphere system. The variability is constrained by the energy of the system and it is clear that it
    sits in a local minimum thanks to the strong balance between input of energy from the Sun and loss of the energy to space (via surface and cloud scattering
    of incoming sunlight and via IR emission and convective heat pumping to thinner layers of the atmosphere). Cloud albedo is basically white noise and
    over the observational record has not demonstrated any trend; there is no valve controlling the energy input just to save our sorry polluting asses. But
    surface albedo associated with ice and snow can exhibit long term trends (e.g. during the glaciation cycles) that exert an enormous impact on the thermal
    energy in the system.

    I could go on for pages. But it is too tedious. People really need to do research on this subject. It is not some casual political concept they
    should pick up from their favourite pundit or party hack.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3026
    Points : 3151
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs on Thu Feb 02, 2017 2:11 am

    Svyatoslavich wrote:
    kvs wrote:Garry is making a very important point about costs.   The sinking of St. Petersburg in the next century with 2 meters or more of
    sea level rise is not going to be a small cost to counteract.   Yeah, they can build flood gates.  But that is a major infrastructure project.
    Also, you can't build them to the current Dutch and British standards since those constructions were based on the wrong estimates.
    Building a structure that can stave off 2 m of sea level rise (including the storm surge which can bring this to over 4 m) has not
    been done before.
    The structure already exists and is quite impressive:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Dam
    Perhaps what would be needed in worst case scenario of sea level rise is to expand it (make it taller).

    The land around the Gulf Finland is not 8 meters above the water line in a lot of places. With systematic sea level rise
    this structure will be defeated by flooding of the land and percolation of water under ground. Hydrology is important too.

    Anyway. It cost money to build this structure. So global warming is not going to be a zero cost experience.

    Azi

    Posts : 115
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Azi on Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:19 am

    Project Canada wrote:



    Im not sure how accurate the picture is but its scary to know how a large portion of Russia will be flooded in the event of a sea level rise., but a good question is., is climate change (along with sea level rise) even real?? Isn't whats happening in the past years just a normal fluctuations in the Earth's climate?

    This scenario won't happen! For this scenario the entire ice would have to melt and flow into the oceans. In terms of 100 years we speak about 2 meters maximum! And never forget, we are normally on the edge to a new ice age!!! World climate depends more on the distance earth - sun and the intensity of the sun, than of concentration of CO2. The albedo is another important factor, bright surface will reflect more solar radiation.

    Problem is we simply don't know what will happen with world climate. Maybe if the world is heating too fast up, then methane clathrate in ocean and methane in Siberia will be set free, this can be very very bad.

    In the map they are a few mistakes! Caspian Sea is not connected with the great oceans. The Mediterranean Sea is shrinking, because the exchange with oceans is around Gibraltar a narrow seaweed, so the level in the Mediterranean Sea will not be so high (evaporation of water), than elsewhere.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:12 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Actually , what you arguing about?

    Arguing?

    What I am saying is that adapting the Russian economy to a new climate... even a more mild one will cost money and effect a lot of industries in a negative way.

    It is not going to be a jackpot for anyone.

    The land area of Europe and Asia where Russia is situated means extremes of temperature... both hot and cold... that is just weather.

    In comparison New Zealand is surrounded by water which moderates the temperature range we experience so it does not get really hot or really cold.

    For Russia it is surrounded by land which heats up more and cools down more than water does so its weather will always be extreme.

    And the robot remark is imply nonsens. Sorry, but it is.

    There are plenty of extreme places in Russia where normal work is not practical... whether it is too cold or too radioactive or whatever.

    Their newest armour has options for remote or telecontrol. That sort of equipment will only become more common in other areas... Large greenhouses with robotic farming systems are an examples of an application of such technologies.




    So, Russia has very minor population in low elevation areas, and that is mainly in St. Petersburg.

    Say , if the Arctic ocean flood a lot of uninhabited area then the average temperature of that area will increase, it will be more habitable, and it become possible to use ships for transportation.


    Actually, with even the Armageddon scenario with the melting of Antarctic and Greenland Russia will have more habitable area than now, and more and better shipborne transportation than now.


    Robots: I feels like a ship designer who has to explain why a container ship can't fly : ).

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:33 am

    Robots: I feels like a ship designer who has to explain why a container ship can't fly : ).

    Open your eyes.

    In the 1980s when Chernobyl exploded the Soviets had very little in the way of robotic equipment and ended up having to send men and women into the area to contain the situation.

    Today the Russian military has its primary armoured vehicles all capable of robotic operation, and is introducing unmanned air, land and sea vehicles.

    For decades the Soviets had robots for space as satellites and to visit other planets.

    Now they have them everywhere... from industry to their military forces and in civilian use... their use will only expand.

    BTW flying cargo ship:



    A cargo ship called Progress... irony?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Feb 03, 2017 6:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Robots: I feels like a ship designer who has to explain why a container ship can't fly : ).

    Open your eyes.

    In the 1980s when Chernobyl exploded the Soviets had very little in the way of robotic equipment and ended up having to send men and women into the area to contain the situation.

    Today the Russian military has its primary armoured vehicles all capable of robotic operation, and is introducing unmanned air, land and sea vehicles.

    For decades the Soviets had robots for space as satellites and to visit other planets.

    Now they have them everywhere... from industry to their military forces and in civilian use... their use will only expand.

    BTW flying cargo ship:

    A cargo ship called Progress... irony?

    And how you can prove based on the above evidence that the outside works, like foundation building, house repair, post erection , road building , welding and so on can be done by robots?

    I haven'_t seen a robot that was stable enough to work without human supervision for long period of time. Say for one week, doing something that required to manipulate its environment.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB on Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:12 am

    Just incase any one thought DT would ease sanctions

    Sanctions are good for Russia... it is making them invest in their own country... something DT will be doing himself...

    Easing sanctions means cheaper food from the EU which means lower cost of living but also strings that can be pulled and Russian money going west...


    And how you can prove based on the above evidence that the outside works, like foundation building, house repair, post erection , road building , welding and so on can be done by robots?

    The technology does not require independent robots capable of autonomous operation... just using telecontrol is enough... a surgeon in Moscow performing an operation on a patient in the middle of Siberia is just one example.

    Putting in posts... building roads, welding robots... they already exist and are in operation...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:23 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The technology does not require independent robots capable of autonomous operation... just using telecontrol is enough... a surgeon in Moscow performing an operation on a patient in the middle of Siberia is just one example.

    Putting in posts... building roads, welding robots... they already exist and are in operation...

    In every activity the ultimate question is the required man-hours to do a given job.


    Say, you have a road laying team team, having the same efficiency.

    How much road can be done with it in California, USA , or in Krestovaya, Russia?

    Main differences: in california you have the right weather in 90% of the time to make roads.
    In Krestovaya maybe 30%.

    Means if you run a fully automated, very expensive road laying robot that looks like a Hindu goddess with hundreds of fanuc arms then it takes say ten years to pay itself in california, and thirty in syberia.

    means that in russia it is simply doesn't worth the money to think about it, simply due to the weather.

    Of course you can try to compensate the weather with increased complexity, but that increase the cost, and won't change the equitation.


    Only way is to be smarter/more efficient in syberia, and run everything with less people, and with better organisation.


    But , of curse if the weather warming up then the efficiency will automagically increase over there : )
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:36 am

    Say, you have a road laying team team, having the same efficiency.

    How much road can be done with it in California, USA , or in Krestovaya, Russia?

    Main differences: in california you have the right weather in 90% of the time to make roads.
    In Krestovaya maybe 30%.

    Means if you run a fully automated, very expensive road laying robot that looks like a Hindu goddess with hundreds of fanuc arms then it takes say ten years to pay itself in california, and thirty in syberia.

    You are looking at it the wrong way around... the robot system that works without people means assuming your guesses are right with the 90% and 30% the virtue of a robot system is that it can work in all weathers and all conditions so it changes the 30% in siberia to 90+ percent meaning it greatly improves road building efficiency in Siberia and is much more valuable.

    The same could be said for a fire fighting robot that can be dropped into the middle of a burning forest to fight the fire by cutting down burning trees and making fire breaks and spraying fire retardant... it can work where no human could work 24/7 with no risk to life.

    Only way is to be smarter/more efficient in syberia, and run everything with less people, and with better organisation.

    Or to use machines that can operate in extreme environments and extreme conditions... much like the comparison between a navy and an army. A soldier on their own can cover ground reasonably efficiently using just their feet and hands... in fact some terrain is more easily covered on foot. In the water however most humans are useless on their own... a victim to local currents and vulnerable to the cold. In the navy you need subs or small boats or helos for movement. You need more automation.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Global warming

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:37 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You are looking at it the wrong way around... the robot system that works without people means assuming your guesses are right with the 90% and 30% the virtue of a robot system is that it can work in all weathers and all conditions so it changes the 30% in siberia to 90+ percent meaning it greatly improves road building efficiency in Siberia and is much more valuable.

    The same could be said for a fire fighting robot that can be dropped into the middle of a burning forest to fight the fire by cutting down burning trees and making fire breaks and spraying fire retardant... it can work where no human could work 24/7 with no risk to life.

    Only way is to be smarter/more efficient in syberia, and run everything with less people, and with better organisation.

    Or to use machines that can operate in extreme environments and extreme conditions... much like the comparison between a navy and an army. A soldier on their own can cover ground reasonably efficiently using just their feet and hands... in fact some terrain is more easily covered on foot. In the water however most humans are useless on their own... a victim to local currents and vulnerable to the cold. In the navy you need subs or small boats or helos for movement. You need more automation.

    From economical standpoint that you saying doesn't make sense.

    Making something that can give the same performance /capacity in syberia takes way more money (resources) than in a warm country.
    Now you have the choices: using same equipment , but with lower utilisation, or way more expensive one with higher utilisation.

    But this is the main point: the increase in the length of the summer will decrease the cost of the road laying example.

    Say you have 100 days instead of 90 available for outside work in each year, with high interest rate it can means the return period will be smaller by 1.5-2 years, instead of 9 say 7-7.5.


    Quite dramatic change, could means the marginal required improvement in many area.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 1:01 pm