Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+28
Azi
Svyatoslavich
Project Canada
GarryB
Singular_Transform
Rmf
PapaDragon
antonherzen
Zivo
higurashihougi
kvs
max steel
Walther von Oldenburg
OminousSpudd
George1
Mike E
NationalRus
Firebird
sepheronx
TR1
collegeboy16
Werewolf
Regular
magnumcromagnon
As Sa'iqa
ali.a.r
dino00
KomissarBojanchev
32 posters

    Is Russia global warming denialist?

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:55 pm

    GarryB wrote:but a well designed plant should be able to shut the reactor down in case of emergency like an air attack, which would mean  it would need a direct hit on the reactor to create any sort of radiation problem...

    That is not too difficult for a modern CM. And there are anti bunker bombs that go trough 60 meter rock, even if it was very well protected. In any case I think a relatively normal impact with a tactical weapon could already expose the core

    and as studies have shown a good enormous burst of radiation gets the people out of there real fast and while it is not good for plants and animals either it is not as bad as human activity on nature so in a way it could be a good thing.

    Well, you are right on that one, we are worse for nature than any bomb...
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Fri Aug 14, 2020 8:12 am

    That is not too difficult for a modern CM. And there are anti bunker bombs that go trough 60 meter rock, even if it was very well protected. In any case I think a relatively normal impact with a tactical weapon could already expose the core

    The irony is that if they did that then the radiation is fully detectable and trackable and the end result is that a lot of people who already have cancer but don't have symptoms will get checked and cancers will be found early which will probably massively offset any people killed by the radiation itself... it would be a very irresponsible party that attacks a nuclear power station as a target of war... if I was that country I would feel free to put radioactive material in conventional bombs and drop them on the enemy capital with airburst fuses so they don't do physical damage but spread contaminated material around the place... and if the enemy had places of value... churches, shrines, things, or places of cultural or religious significance they would get dirty bombed too.

    It is not ideal, but hydro electric dams can also kill lots of people with flooding... and not all countries have suitable rivers for hydro electric power in the first place... which limits options...



    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Fri Aug 14, 2020 12:16 pm

    GarryB wrote:The irony is that if they did that then the radiation is fully detectable and trackable and the end result is that a lot of people who already have cancer but don't have symptoms will get checked and cancers will be found early which will probably massively offset any people killed by the radiation itself...

    Hahaha that is what I would call a positive view of the issue  Razz

    it would be a very irresponsible party that attacks a nuclear power station as a target of war... if I was that country I would feel free to put radioactive material in conventional bombs and drop them on the enemy capital

    One Ukranian journo proposed this to attack Russia recently.

    A damaged reactor will lose cooling, bars will melt and the fission will be not controlled, big amounts of radioactive materials can be expelled to the air and cover big areas that afterwards are not safe to live... it is not an easy situation to manage and the last thing you want to take care of while you are waging war.

    It is not ideal, but hydro electric dams can also kill lots of people with flooding... and not all countries have suitable rivers for hydro electric power in the first place... which limits options...

    That kind of targets are supposedly off-limits, but in a war they want you dead to start with so I would not count on everyone being a gentleman. Bombing of Serbia comes to mind...
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:58 pm

    Hydroelectric is a limited capacity energy source. Even though there is more than enough water available, there are not enough
    basins of the right topography (e.g. James Bay in Canada, and Three Gorges in China) to enable hydroelectric dam construction.
    Here in Canada, Quebec runs on hydroelectricity, Ontario runs on coal, nuclear and natural gas.

    The tidal project in the Bay of Fundy has been talked and talked about but nothing of substance has resulted.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/sustainable-marine-energy-minas-tidal-lp-bay-of-fundy-tidal-power-1.5304276

    The above article is like seeing a time warp anomaly. It swear I saw the same content in 1990.

    Don't get me wrong. I am not wishing for alternatives to never be deployed. It is a good thing in my view that
    Russia is deploying solar panels and windmills in substantial amounts. It is already contributing to the development
    of solar panel tech with high efficiency amorphous solar cells. It is also researching meta materials for solar cells
    such as including gold nano particles to act as a sort of quantum catalyst that increases the electricity generated
    for a given radiation flux on to the solar cell.

    If you do a Google search for the plasmon effect, you will see that it is now an active area or research in the west.
    But it goes back years to research done at Dubna and probably elsewhere.

    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1915

    Westerners dismiss Russian tech after any sort of hype about it, unlike their own which they love to hype to no end.
    I doubt the Dubna derived research was not real. What most likely happened is that it got appropriated for military
    uses. It may also be too expensive for commercialization.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:22 pm

    kvs wrote:Hydroelectric is a limited capacity energy source.   Even though there is more than enough water available, there are not enough
    basins of the right topography

    True, and so big countries which like Brazil could get most of their electricity from hydro are exceptions. The good part is that the same reservoir surface used for PV modules generates many times the energy that hydro does. As to biofuels, the energy / surface relationship is like 50 times or more in favour of solar. Still we see thousands of hectares of fertile land being ruined with them, or hundreds of square km being flooded and take it for normal, but we are still not used to putting some PV modules on the roof...

    Don't get me wrong.  I am not wishing for alternatives to never be deployed.  

    Yeah I think we understand what you mean. People need to take a look at the primary energy sources in this world and they will understand that a energy transition like the one being proposed now will take like one century to be completed... and in the meantime industries and cars and homes need to be supplied, not only in rich countries but in developing ones too.

    It is already contributing to the development of solar panel tech with high efficiency amorphous solar cells. It is also researching meta materials for solar cells such as including gold nano particles to act as a sort of quantum catalyst that increases the electricity generated for a given radiation flux on to the solar cell.
     

    Exactly, Russia's very particular scientific school can play a huge role in advancing the physics needed for high efficiency cells, new materials etc., even if the solar resource of the country is not so good. I seem to remember Ioffe Institute has been involved in PV research for a long time.

    If you do a Google search for the plasmon effect, you will see that it is now an active area or research in the west.
    But it goes back years to research done at Dubna and probably elsewhere.  

    http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1915  

    Haha, plasmons, that trivial topic Razz
    Let's see how much I manage to understand of all that... but anyway for the little that I am reading its possibilities seem amazing, thanks for pointing it out
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:56 am

    Hahaha that is what I would call a positive view of the issue

    One of the effects of Chernobyl is that environmental radiation levels were monitored closely by lots of european countries and more people got tested and checked for cancer than ever before so deaths from cancers actually went down from normal because often by the time symptoms appear it is too late, but people with no symptoms were being tested and it was getting found much earlier.

    One Ukranian journo proposed this to attack Russia recently.

    I was thinking of an Iran vs Israel type scenario, but if the Ukraine wasn't to commit suicide I am sure the Russians would enjoy attacking and taking out the relative government and military components of their country likely in on such a plan and leveling the buildings they occupy... purely self defence of course.

    If the west defended the actions of the Ukraine I am sure ISIS in Europe could be supplied with some very toxic substances that would be completely untraceable... or traced to western facilities...

    A damaged reactor will lose cooling, bars will melt and the fission will be not controlled, big amounts of radioactive materials can be expelled to the air and cover big areas that afterwards are not safe to live... it is not an easy situation to manage and the last thing you want to take care of while you are waging war.

    It would all come down to the damage sustained and the type of reactor... many have auto shut down mechanisms so that if power is lost then magnetic fields fail and the reactor is automatically shut down... so nothing melts... no civilian or military nuclear reactor on the planet could ever reach fission temperatures... the materials being used are no where near enriched enough to achieve that... the worst that normally happens is that the coolant water is super super heated which separates the hydrogen from the oxygen... which detonates like a bomb... but a hydrogen oxygen bomb... it is a chemical explosion and not a nuclear one.

    During war time with a real enemy most of the time the war is vastly more dangerous than radiation leaking... those effects are more long term...

    That kind of targets are supposedly off-limits, but in a war they want you dead to start with so I would not count on everyone being a gentleman. Bombing of Serbia comes to mind...

    I doubt big powerful countries like the US see war the same as the little countries they crush... they take what they want and expect everyone to move on like nothing just happened... I mean there are people in the US who genuinely think the US should make up friends with Russia to fight the Asian menace of China... because we are all just european white people now...

    The same people who might not even admit the WMDs in Iraq were made up, but will say it was good we invaded anyway because Saddam was bad and they wouldn't be free now... free to do as America tells them to of course...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Sat Aug 15, 2020 1:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:One of the effects of Chernobyl is that environmental radiation levels were monitored closely by lots of european countries and more people got tested and checked for cancer than ever before so deaths from cancers actually went down

    Wow didn't know that...

    It would all come down to the damage sustained and the type of reactor... many have auto shut down mechanisms so that if power is lost then magnetic fields fail and the reactor is automatically shut down... so nothing melts

    I would not be so sure. Water is gone, temperature goes up. Control bars or they mechanisms could be damaged by the warhead too, it is not so crazy to think that I would say. But I guess it depends a lot on the type of reactor and the type of attack. Even used up fuel rods left without water heat up badly too. Fukushima gave us some nasty surprises about how nuclear reactors work and what happens when supporting systems are damaged. Not every system is intrinsically safe, much less when things get blown to pieces wit explosives What a Face

    ... no civilian or military nuclear reactor on the planet could ever reach fission temperatures... the materials being used are no where near enriched enough to achieve that... the worst that normally happens is that the coolant water is super super heated which separates the hydrogen from the oxygen... which detonates like a bomb... but a hydrogen oxygen bomb... it is a chemical explosion and not a nuclear one.

    Fission happens naturally on radioactive materials, and if you put them close to each other the process reinforces itself... not saying they are going to explode like an atom bomb. What did you understand?

    The same people who might not even admit the WMDs in Iraq were made up, but will say it was good we invaded anyway because Saddam was bad and they wouldn't be free now... free to do as America tells them to of course...

    Same way of thinking of nazis, only with an overdose of faked equanimity and without swastikas Rolling Eyes
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Sat Aug 15, 2020 5:28 pm

    The advantage of the BN-800 and similar reactors (e.g. Superphenix in France) is that it is an unpressurized vat of metal.
    People point to sodium fires. The key is that they are not explosive fires. It is not like NH4NO3 which achieves highly
    exothermic reaction pathways at high temperatures. Sodium does not detonate. So even with a fire, it is a surface
    constrained process that will take a bloody long time to burn off all the sodium. Unlike pressurized water based
    reactors, which are all fundamentally unsafe, molten metal vats have enormous passive heating capacity. Even without
    pumps the metal will not heat up enough to boil off unless there is a crisis with the control rods and the fuel rods
    hit thousands of degrees Celsius in temperature. But the fuel rods are always partially inserted to regulate the neutron
    flux and cannot be removed with a flip of the button.

    The point of using sodium is that it almost like water at 100 C. It has low viscosity and does not erode the piping. Other
    metals have even more resistance to boiling. Lead boils at 1740 C compared to 800 C (I forget the exact number but
    it is not significantly lower) for sodium. Russia is going to build a lead-based fast neutron reactor pilot plant. Lead
    has the problem of erosion of steel pipes. The USSR used lead-bismuth for its submarine fast neutron reactors. They
    had the "problem" of freezing solid when idled by fully inserting the control rods. That is a "problem" one would rather
    have compared to the water cooled and moderated reactors where the water boils off instantly in any crisis and turns
    into hydrogen by thermal decomposition (insane temperatures of the fuel bundles) and explodes. This is what threw off
    the 2000 ton lid at Chernobyl and gave us the explosions we saw at the Fukushima reactor blocks.

    A nuke attack on a molten metal reactor vat would be just as bad as any other reactor since the nuclear plasma ball
    would evapourate the concrete containment structure and the vat itself. But it has to be a direct hit. An air burst
    nuclear explosion above the ground designed for maximal damage over and area would likely not evapourate the
    vat and its contents and would just heavily damage the containment structure. Radiation would get out but nowhere
    near as much as from water cooled/moderated reactors. Those reactors would undergo meltdowns since they would
    lose the coolant pumps and even it was generation III+, they would lose their passive cooling which has to be a much
    more extensive structure than for a molten metal vat.

    GarryB and LMFS like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:12 pm

    That was the kind of solid info we were missing, thanks thumbsup

    I am rather sure that a conventional attack to the reactor building with a simple warhead against hardened targets would suffice to expose the core / cause a catastrophic malfunction, after the 9/11 the topic of crashing an airliner against those installations was brought up to the light and the results of the assessments were not good from what I remember. CMs/BMs and specially bunker-buster bombs can go through meters and in some cases tens of meters of reinforced concrete and steel before going off, so I very much doubt a reactor contention structure has any chance, unless it was like 100 m below ground...
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:28 pm

    LMFS wrote:That was the kind of solid info we were missing, thanks thumbsup

    I am rather sure that a conventional attack to the reactor building with a simple warhead against hardened targets would suffice to expose the core / cause a catastrophic malfunction, after the 9/11 the topic of crashing an airliner against those installations was brought up to the light and the results of the assessments were not good from what I remember. CMs/BMs and specially bunker-buster bombs can go through meters and in some cases tens of meters of reinforced concrete and steel before going off, so I very much doubt a reactor contention structure has any chance, unless it was like 100 m below ground...

    Reactor containment structures are explicitly designed to withstand a direct hit from a full sized airliner.    Of course, explosive
    warheads are another matter.   But a bunker buster used against a molten vat reactor has a hard time because none of the
    targets are soft.   It is vastly easier to destroy the functionality of a water cooled/moderated design and cause it to undergo
    a meltdown.

    If we are going to live in a world where rogue states like the US plan to attack nuclear power plants, then counter measures
    will be taken.   Bunker buster warheads can likely be triggered with the right EM warfare tricks.   Even fully enclosed in metal
    explosives and detonators are open to magnetic fields which are not stopped by Faraday cages.   So currents can be
    induced inside the warhead.    Forcing the explosion at the first layer of concrete would pretty much castrate the potency
    of these weapons.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:20 am

    Wow didn't know that...

    It is not in the interests of the west to say nice things about Chernobyl, but the radiation didn't kill everything within a 1,000 mile radius and the mutants depicted in STALKER were not created, though actual mutants and mutations did occur they were real mutations and mutants... not movie ones. Getting bitten by a radioactive spider in a movie turns you into Spiderman. In the 1980s there were a series of cheap B movies about a nerd that is pushed and falls into toxic waste and he becomes the toxic avenger... in real life if you don't die it inflicts pain and suffering and shortens your life and makes things much harder.

    Western countries were interested in blaming the Soviets so of course they monitored radiation levels and increased funding to healthcare regarding cancer and people got checked more thoroughly than they normally would... any increase in cancers could therefore be blamed on the Soviets and Chernobyl.

    As I mentioned at the time and even right now the key to surviving cancer is early detection and treatment... technology being rather better today than back then, but people keep dying from cancer.

    I would not be so sure. Water is gone, temperature goes up. Control bars or they mechanisms could be damaged by the warhead too, it is not so crazy to think that I would say.

    Actually that is wrong... if the water goes then the temperature does go up but who cares? The temperature will never go up high enough to create fusion or even fission because the material is fuel grade enriched and not weapon grade enriched so you will never achieve critical mass.

    If you leave the water there however it is under pressure so the boiling temperature is increased... running normally the water temperature is 5 or 6 hundred degrees C and it only just starts to turn into steam to drive turbines because of the immense pressure it is under... hence they are called Pressurised water reactors or PWRs. If you keep heating it up to thousands of degrees it gets very energetic and the hydrogen and oxygen separate but are still mixed together and at those temperatures you don't need a spark and you have oxygen and hydrogen mixed together in gas form hydrogen being a fuel and oxygen being an oxidiser and heat... = boom. Not a nuke boom, but still a boom which releases the now melted radioactive materials.

    But modern nuclear reactors have safety measures... one of the ones introduced is that a matrix of control rods that are normally moved between the fuel rods to stop the reactions are designed to operate automatically. One common method is to use electromagnets to hold the control rods above the fuel rods when the reactor is running. If there is a power cut or some problem the magnetic field holding the control rods up either goes off in a power cut or can be turned off manually... making the control rods drop into place and effectively shut down the reactor by stopping the reaction.

    Earth quake, Tsunami, fire, or any other problem and it automatically shuts down... if it is a false alarm then you can turn it back on again easily enough.

    Even used up fuel rods left without water heat up badly too. Fukushima gave us some nasty surprises about how nuclear reactors work and what happens when supporting systems are damaged. Not every system is intrinsically safe, much less when things get blown to pieces wit explosives

    The Soviets and Russians learned a lot regarding Chernobyl and started building safety features into their reactors. Fukushima is an old American design that had backup generators and things like that but once the whole reactor was ironically swamped with water and sea water at that... the electric generators stopped working and backups stopped too and without power they were unable to shut down the reactors properly. The earthquake did some damage but it was the water damage from the Tsunami that really created the problems... and of course poor design in terms of safety... but you wont hear that latter fact from western sources...

    Fission happens naturally on radioactive materials, and if you put them close to each other the process reinforces itself... not saying they are going to explode like an atom bomb. What did you understand?

    Fission is not an issue as you explain... fission is only a problem when critical mass is achieved and a runaway nuclear reaction takes place, which as I said is not possible because the material is not enriched to weapon grade levels so even a thousand tons of the stuff stacked together will just get hot enough to melt and then dribble down into the ground... it will not go boom.

    CMs/BMs and specially bunker-buster bombs can go through meters and in some cases tens of meters of reinforced concrete and steel before going off, so I very much doubt a reactor contention structure has any chance, unless it was like 100 m below ground...

    Yeah... all they have to do is penetrate Russian air defences with a bomber big enough to carry this huge bunker buster munitions and not get shot down by aircraft or SAMs on the way to or around the target... and of course be fully aware that they will likely respond in kind and using mach 10 hypersonic missiles would probably make replying in kind actually much easier for them...

    If Israel does it to Iran I am sure they will be scooping up the radiated material and popping it in cannisters to launch at Israel... which is a much smaller country and much easier to contaminate with radioactive materials.

    They have the capability to enrich various materials to dangerous levels and put them in a ceramic container lined with control rod materials and over the target eject the fissile material over the enemy territory...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 5090
    Points : 5086
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  LMFS Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:23 am

    GarryB wrote:even a thousand tons of the stuff stacked together will just get hot enough to melt and then dribble down into the ground... it will not go boom.

    Of course it will not boom... It will still be hot enough to release lot of radioactive materials into the environment that the wind will take far away and that is a serious problem to manage...

    Yeah... all they have to do is penetrate Russian air defences with a bomber big enough to carry this huge bunker buster munitions and not get shot down by aircraft or SAMs on the way to or around the target... and of course be fully aware that they will likely respond in kind and using mach 10 hypersonic missiles would probably make replying in kind actually much easier for them...

    Yeah, I mentioned Russia as the kind of country that is in better conditions to protect their NPPs. Other countries, not so much.

    If Israel does it to Iran I am sure they will be scooping up the radiated material and popping it in cannisters to launch at Israel... which is a much smaller country and much easier to contaminate with radioactive materials.

    Israel bought GBU-28 from US with Iran's nuclear facilities in mind. US ordered recently more GBU-57 for that reason too

    https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30872/air-force-updates-massive-ordnance-penetrator-bombs-amid-new-iranian-nuclear-posturing

    kvs wrote: But a bunker buster used against a molten vat reactor has a hard time because none of the
    targets are soft. It is vastly easier to destroy the functionality of a water cooled/moderated design and cause it to undergo
    a meltdown.

    With the penetration capability those weapons have, "hard time" is a bit relative, but I get the point that molten vat reactors are more vulnerable than PWR ones... which are the vast majority if I am not wrong.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Tue Aug 08, 2023 3:32 am

    I just watched a discussion in one of the main political analysis talk shows in Russia where pure nonsense was spewed about
    climate dynamics pertaining to Antarctica. The established fact that Antarctica froze over 34 million years ago is twisted into
    a ludicrous argument that since there were no humans and dinosaur oil (LOL) to warm the planet why was it green before
    34 million years.

    The answer is that CO2 levels were higher. They have been falling for last 100 million years. See Figure 2(c) in

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0902323106

    Antarctica will not melt any time soon since there is a strong hysteresis effect. The high albedo and circumpolar ocean current
    will maintain a frozen state for a long time even with CO2 levels at 1000 ppmv.

    People need to separate politics from science. Science is not merely a conspiracy of the elites. It is really simple minded
    reductionism to project everything into one mode. So if NATzO governments have an agenda, then every entity in NATzO countries
    is following as well. When I published in peer reviewed journals I did not have political considerations to deal with. Physics is
    not social "science" where politics is paramount. It is too hard and obscure for most people to handle. The key research in
    climate science goes back decades ago and predates the rabid politicization. I have not seen any revision of the science that
    would support the claim of political bias.





    kommer2016 likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Tue Aug 08, 2023 12:11 pm

    Actually the warm temperatures in Antarctica 34 million years ago had nothing at all to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere and everything to do with plate tectonics...

    34 million years ago the land mass of Australia was attached to Antarctica and the sea water flowed around those two enormous land masses joined together as one.

    This meant the sea water came up into the warmer regions of the sea closer to the equator before they went down around Antarctica which warmed up the entire single continent.

    Most of the Marsupials native to Australia don't belong in the desert environment they now live in, which is why Aussie is so strange and so unlike the animals in say south America or Africa.

    Australia and the other land masses moved away from Antarctica which stayed where it was, so as Australia moved north it went from Europe like weather (thanks to the warm sea currents adding heat to the region in Summer) to the furnace it will be in a few decades and it moves north into Asia.

    Antarctica stayed where it was and when Australia separated the sea water going around the continent stayed in the very southern latitudes and didn't move up into the warmer areas of the sea so the water got colder and colder and the land froze.

    flamming_python likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:04 pm



    Worth watching too...
    avatar
    Firebird


    Posts : 1709
    Points : 1739
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Firebird Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:03 pm

    The "human caused global warming" claim just doesn't add up.

    Firstly, why does this all happen just as the US gang starts running out of oil and running out of oil places to successfully bully, plunder and rape?

    Secondly, if the WEF/Washington gang is so concerned about "the environment" why have they geared EVERYTHING to making the Western economy FAR more disposable and wasteful than ever before. Cars are designed to clap out in just a few years, same with all manner of products... EVEN BUILDINGS!

    Thirdly, scientists are being gagged. Just like on the Pukraine and Covid Frankenvax etc.
    And who is screaming global warming the loudest? Scientists? No its actually the WEF's own website.

    Fourth, central banks considered "politics" sacrosanct and would never enter debates on poverty or even starvation, or commerce or "the real economy". But now they are planning to run the show on "carbon credits" ie a refinancialisation of the US centric dollar slavery system.

    Fifth, CO2 is NOT the Devil. Its tiny increase does not explain any temp rises.

    Werewolf likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:12 pm

    You are confounding separate issues. One is the real science, the other is elite maggots trying to use this real long term crises to grab more
    power and to turn us into serfs, all over again.

    Where do you think the 30 billion tons of CO2 spewed out by humans (industry, transport, heating, etc) every single year is going? If you
    think it is being sponged up by the "infinite" reservoir of sinks (oceans, rock erosion), then you are wrong. The primary long term sink for
    CO2 is carbonic acid in rain water weathering rocks and forming carbonates that are transported primarily to the oceans by river run off.
    But the time scale for this sink is 100,000s of years and longer. Then we have ocean deposition. This is the primary short term sink and
    occurs in regions with cold water. But this is not a sink that acts through the volume of the world's oceans but is limited to the surface
    and we have clear evidence that the surface layer (mixed layer) of the oceans is warming. This is directly reducing the ocean sink and
    at current rates of warming, the oceans will become net sources of CO2 by 2100. There is over 50 times the atmospheric amount of CO2
    dissolved in the oceans. The amount emitted will exceed 30 billion tons per year over a short period of time. So we will have CO2 pumping
    for thousands of years even if humans reduce their output to zero. If humans did this today, the process will not be stopped since 80 years
    is not enough to reverse the latent warming in the system with the current 410 ppmv of CO2 (which is actually more like 500 given the other
    greenhouse gases).

    The routine ploy to fob off warming on solar variability is inane. Straightforward calculations can be done as to what heat trapping occurs
    with global CO2 increases compared to the range of TSI variability from the Sun.

    https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

    CO2 is not a problem in the 350 ppmv and lower range. We are hitting Miocene levels of CO2 and will melt the Greenland ice cap. We are also
    at the threshold to release vast reservoirs of carbon from permafrost regions and from the dissolved CO2 in the oceans. We cannot dial these
    reservoirs up and down as we please. Once they start to go, then we are f*cked. This includes the elite maggots.



    higurashihougi likes this post

    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 2989
    Points : 3078
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  higurashihougi Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:59 pm

    Firebird wrote:Secondly, if the WEF/Washington gang is so concerned about "the environment" why have they geared EVERYTHING to making the Western economy FAR more disposable and wasteful than ever before. Cars are designed to clap out in just a few years, same with all manner of products... EVEN BUILDINGS!

    Profit. If profit is 300%, capital are eager to drive itself to extinction.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5917
    Points : 6108
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Werewolf Tue Sep 19, 2023 9:01 am

    The CO2 in the atmospher is ~0.04%. The Human affect on this is less than 2% of this 0.04% (0.0008 globally). Will the West stop their consumerism with obselescense in mind when building the Xs Mobile phone within a single year just to slow your phones OS down so you are convinced you need a new one? Or cars, that are like Firebird said already build with the same principle in mind. Lasts not long, requires constant fixing and maintenance (much more than any car prior to 2010 and can only be serviced by other people than yourself?

    The biggest emissions from that crap comes from the West even when China is nr.1, that crap was produced mainly for western markets and consumeristic slavery mindset.

    There is no affect humanity has on large scale to direct global warming/cooling in any direction, although, they do geo-engineering (chemtrails), which was just another "conspiracy theory" by nuts people, which they admitted they do. The very same globalists that are responsible for depopulation agendas, modern wars and the global warming cult.

    I do not see any path humanity can take to have an effect on it, while all the big players (globalists) are running everything, the economy, the wars and the distribution (their own pockets) of resources and wealth.


    I would be more concerned with tactical nukes, especially if you live in central-eastern parts of Europe and to some extend (central America).

    Call me ignorant kvs, but what I have learned in the past 15 years of politics is, do the opposite of what the globalists propagate and you will have a much better outcome for yourself.

    Eat your bugs do it for the planet!
    Stop eating red meat, eggs, fish (bad for your health)!
    Eat as much as possible carbohydrate rich food (good for your health!
    Cow farts hurt the planet!
    Take your mrna vaccines!
    Medicine is good, take XYZ drugs daily! (American mindset)

    If you do the exact opposite you will be so healthy that will not need a doctor for your daily medication.

    Broski likes this post

    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 2989
    Points : 3078
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  higurashihougi Tue Sep 19, 2023 9:48 am

    Werewolf wrote:Call me ignorant kvs, but what I have learned in the past 15 years of politics is, do the opposite of what the globalists propagate and you will have a much better outcome for yourself.

    We have to distinguish two different things:

    (1) Anthropogenic global warming is real.

    (2) "Environmentally friendly" policies in the West, under the rule of capitalists over labourers, are hypocritical, and are aimed to shift the blame to individial's behavior as a scapegoat to distract the people from the real culrpits which are the capitalists and the criminal system protecting them.

    Elaboration for (2): eating bugs can't solve global warming, because bug eaters does not have the authority to prevent deforestation cause by Japanese, with the collaboration of local compradors, in South East Asia and Continental East Asia.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python


    Posts : 8988
    Points : 9050
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  flamming_python Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:06 am

    Eating bugs is meant for that good ol' protein, not to prevent deforestation

    And you need that alternative protein source because of course the environmentalists and greens are against eating meat. Not only because of the moral issue, but also because all that livestock around the world contributes to CO2 levels. That's the explanation given dunno

    However the greens in Germany are also taking fish off the menu in kindergardens and schools as I heard. And that's more of a mystery of course because if you stop fishing, the fish population will only grow, and produce more CO2.

    I think they just want the commoners to eat insects for the hell of it.

    Firebird, kvs and Broski like this post

    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi


    Posts : 2989
    Points : 3078
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  higurashihougi Tue Sep 19, 2023 10:27 am

    flamming_python wrote:I think they just want the commoners to eat insects for the hell of it.

    If they know that raw hornet pupae can be sold at 21USD/kilogram and, in Eastern medicine, is considered as a valuable nutritional food, then the commoners no longer have any chance to consume insects. Insects will be reserved for the social elites and the content of "conservationism" mantra will be changed drastically.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5917
    Points : 6108
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Werewolf Tue Sep 19, 2023 11:19 am

    flamming_python wrote:Eating bugs is meant for that good ol' protein, not to prevent deforestation

    And you need that alternative protein source because of course the environmentalists and greens are against eating meat. Not only because of the moral issue, but also because all that livestock around the world contributes to CO2 levels. That's the explanation given dunno

    However the greens in Germany are also taking fish off the menu in kindergardens and schools as I heard. And that's more of a mystery of course because if you stop fishing, the fish population will only grow, and produce more CO2.

    I think they just want the commoners to eat insects for the hell of it.

    The ultimate goal of the globalists is to reduce public health which is in full alignment of their "population control" plans.
    The vast majority of Bugs are infested by parasites. There is a good reason why humans do not eat bugs through out hundred of thousands of years. We also have a good healthy response towards eating insects that is called "disgust". We are not disgusted for no reason, it is an important survival instinct not to risk your health.

    That is also the reason why this globalists are working and probably have succeeded in an engineering of enzymes that is causing allergic reaction to meat. The biolabs from the US are certainly not there to end world hunger or any other philanthropic nonsense trope.
    There is a good reason why people who are working these fields and propagate WHO standards are unhealthy and looking at the representatives are usually older than their biological age and usually overweight and obese. The very same "health experts" that demonize any advocate for carnivore diet or traditional source of protein. The people that advocate for insects and soy source as main protein are the same that are pushed as health experts and authoritice let alone main propaganda. While working out, eating meat is coined today as right wing extremism. That tells you absolutely everything you need to know.

    I know what the correct path is for my and my families health. I treat MSM propaganda like I have treated it the past 15 years, do 180° of what they say.
    Never have been I healthier and less reliant on medication and visiting the doctor, nor believing everything like the average Hans here in Germany.

    Consume your insects, consume your soy, drink tap water with flourid and obey as we say!

    Anthropogenic global warming is real.

    Based on what data?

    Looking at the last 180 years and making it appear to be so or looking at the younger dryas which shows the occurence of global warming predating our ways of live today. (officially of course).

    The threat from globalists is higher than any climate change that will occur and even the periodic disasters are neither human controllable nor preventable just by simply eating bugs and not driving diesel/benzin cars. The nonsense of the globalists to shift the blame on the average human is only for their plans for better control of the population. The very same people who brought and financed Georgia Guide stones. Everything the globalists say is a conspiracy theory while the so conspiracy theorists have been quite right for the past 20 years. We live in a ridiculous world. It's Madmen's world.

    Broski likes this post

    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 14956
    Points : 15093
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  kvs Tue Sep 19, 2023 1:23 pm

    Werewolf wrote:The CO2 in the atmospher is ~0.04%. The Human affect on this is less than 2% of this 0.04% (0.0008 globally).

    CO2 is the dry gas that keeps Earth a habitable planet and not an ice Hell. Without CO2 and other non-condensing greenhouse gases the primary IR trapping water vapour
    would systematically precipitate out. We would get a snowball Earth regime like we had hundreds of millions of years ago when CO2 did drop enough. N2, O2 and Argon do
    not absorb IR and thus cannot act as greenhouse gases. So that 0.04% is of primary importance. It is a routine ploy by global warming deniers to invoke the absolute
    concentration of CO2 as some retarded argument about how irrelevant it is. That's not physics, that is politics and these assholes can shove their ignorance and bias where
    the Sun don't shine.


    Will the West stop their consumerism with obselescense in mind when building the Xs Mobile phone within a single year just to slow your phones OS down so you are convinced you need a new one? Or cars, that are like Firebird said already build with the same principle in mind. Lasts not long, requires constant fixing and maintenance (much more than any car prior to 2010 and can only be serviced by other people than yourself?

    The biggest emissions from that crap comes from the West even when China is nr.1, that crap was produced mainly for western markets and consumeristic slavery mindset.

    This is politics and does not debunk the science. Humanity is owned and used by a tiny minority of power grubbing maggots and will pay for this with near
    extinction in the coming couple of centuries.


    There is no affect humanity has on large scale to direct global warming/cooling in any direction,

    This is exactly the problem. Until the pain is high enough humans will make up excuses that there is no problem and proceed with their precious business as usual.
    But when the pain is enough, it is way too late.


    although, they do geo-engineering (chemtrails), which was just another "conspiracy theory" by nuts people, which they admitted they do. The very same globalists that are responsible for depopulation agendas, modern wars and the global warming cult.

    I do not see any path humanity can take to have an effect on it, while all the big players (globalists) are running everything, the economy, the wars and the distribution (their own pockets) of resources and wealth.


    I would be more concerned with tactical nukes, especially if you live in central-eastern parts of Europe and to some extend (central America).

    Call me ignorant kvs, but what I have learned in the past 15 years of politics is, do the opposite of what the globalists propagate and you will have a much better outcome for yourself.

    Eat your bugs do it for the planet!
    Stop eating red meat, eggs, fish (bad for your health)!
    Eat as much as possible carbohydrate rich food (good for your health!
    Cow farts hurt the planet!
    Take your mrna vaccines!
    Medicine is good, take XYZ drugs daily! (American mindset)

    If you do the exact opposite you will be so healthy that will not need a doctor for your daily medication.

    This is political reaction and not understanding. Contrarianism is not a universal solution. The thinking is woke at its core and analogous to: since women are "oppressed", let's
    remove sex and create amorphous sexuality (gender fluidity) to remove the "oppression". But here we have: since the rotten elites are trying to use global warming
    to ass rape the proles, let's believe that climate science is a lie. Total, unmitigated nonsense "thinking". Those elites are in a frenzy of re-arranging the deck chairs on
    the Titanic. Their cunning is not infinite and they did not start their current agenda 150 years ago by faking spectroscopy.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38493
    Points : 38993
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  GarryB Tue Sep 19, 2023 1:23 pm

    CO2 is not a problem in the 350 ppmv and lower range. We are hitting Miocene levels of CO2 and will melt the Greenland ice cap. We are also
    at the threshold to release vast reservoirs of carbon from permafrost regions and from the dissolved CO2 in the oceans. We cannot dial these
    reservoirs up and down as we please. Once they start to go, then we are f*cked. This includes the elite maggots.

    The claims of runaway greenhouse effect never really added up to me... if that is what happens then why hasn't it happened before?

    Even when we had the opposite of the runaway greenhouse effect... the runaway snowball earth... eventually it fixed itself... it balanced itself.

    Now I am not suggesting human beings wont get wiped out, but the planet itself will continue just fine.

    Sponsored content


    Is Russia global warming denialist? - Page 5 Empty Re: Is Russia global warming denialist?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Feb 25, 2024 10:50 pm