Environment and Nature of Russia

https://leaderpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/nornickels-2-bln-fine-will-be-used-to-improve-arctic-environment-putin

Wow 2B!! I guess the bill became due.

mnztr wrote:https://leaderpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/nornickels-2-bln-fine-will-be-used-to-improve-arctic-environment-putin

Wow 2B!! I guess the bill became due.

That's a price of Lider icebreaker with half a billion to spare

Wake up call to big companies who pollute and don't take it seriously...

Perhaps a similar approach to Facebook and Twitter and Google et al...

Their pollution seems to be even more toxic and far reaching...

The liberast 5th column in Russia has been spreading for years that Russia is cutting down all its forests to export logs
to China and elsewhere. This includes using fakes such as images of clear cuts in Indonesia and passing them off as from
Russia. It tells you something that these clowns can't even use Google Earth images to "prove" their BS claims.

According to a western evaluation of the state of forests around the world, Russia stands out as one of the least stressed
in terms of deforestation. In fact, since 1988 the forest biomass has increased by 40%. This increase was associated
with 47% increase in CO2 uptake. So Russian forests are fighting global warming.

The evaluation is based on satellite measurements which establish an objective method and not speculation. As I said,
if these liberast "the sky is falling, Russia is being sold by Putin to China" asswipes had a case they would have plenty of
measurement data to prove it. Instead, they make vapid accusations and engage in the spreading of fake images.

BTW, Google Earth allows you to roll back the years of the images. So any massive deforestation would be manifest.

So the very west who sponsors these people discredits them. Lol

seriously, what a fucking shit article.

Sakhalin isn't even part of the Kuril Islands and what Japan wants (what they claim is theirs), are the 4 kuril islands are north east of Japan, while Sakhalin is North-westish...

Man, these articles suck donkey balls big time.

Reuters is a sack of NATzO propaganda excrement. They make WWII sound like a Russian invasion. There was Japan, minding
its own peaceful interests and those horrible Russians invaded. Reuters forgets that Germany lost real estate also thanks to being
the aggressor in WWII and being "invaded" by the allies.

As I said before, the long term agenda of NATzO revisionists is to put the blame for WWII 100% on Russia. Nazi Germany will
soon be called a victim of Soviet aggression and the Holoacaust will be claimed as a Soviet crime. After all Auschwitz was built
by Soviet soldiers. They will leave out the POW and first through the ovens parts.

The average western MSM consumer may as well have an IQ of 80. If you don't use your intelligence, then it atrophies and
becomes academic anyway.

kvs wrote:Reuters is a sack of NATzO propaganda excrement.   They make WWII sound like a Russian invasion.   There was Japan, minding
its own peaceful interests and those horrible Russians invaded.   Reuters forgets that Germany lost real estate also thanks to being
the aggressor in WWII and being "invaded" by the allies.

As I said before, the long term agenda of NATzO revisionists is to put the blame for WWII 100% on Russia.   Nazi Germany will
soon be called a victim of Soviet aggression and the Holoacaust will be claimed as a Soviet crime.   After all Auschwitz was built
by Soviet soldiers.   They will leave out the POW and first through the ovens parts.

The average western MSM consumer may as well have an IQ of 80.   If you don't use your intelligence, then it atrophies and
becomes academic anyway.

scary part it works. Even in Japan. Which Japanese are known for being quite smart people. But they are intentionally hiding the information that US nuked them and instead most youth think it was Soviets who nuked them. Seriously.

Only thing that stands in the way of all of that is both China and Koreas knowledge on WWII and their dislike for Japan.

miketheterrible wrote:seriously, what a fucking shit article.

Sakhalin isn't even part of the Kuril Islands and what Japan wants (what they claim is theirs), are the 4 kuril islands are north east of Japan, while Sakhalin is North-westish...

Man, these articles suck donkey balls big time.

The Kuril Islands are part of Sakhalin Oblast administratively-territorialy

flamming_python wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:seriously, what a fucking shit article.

Sakhalin isn't even part of the Kuril Islands and what Japan wants (what they claim is theirs), are the 4 kuril islands are north east of Japan, while Sakhalin is North-westish...

Man, these articles suck donkey balls big time.

The Kuril Islands are part of Sakhalin Oblast administratively-territorialy

Not of Sakhalin Island itself which this program is for. May fall under it administratively. Glad they can add all that bullshit to the article.

miketheterrible wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:seriously, what a fucking shit article.

Sakhalin isn't even part of the Kuril Islands and what Japan wants (what they claim is theirs), are the 4 kuril islands are north east of Japan, while Sakhalin is North-westish...

Man, these articles suck donkey balls big time.

The Kuril Islands are part of Sakhalin Oblast administratively-territorialy

Not of Sakhalin Island itself which this program is for. May fall under it administratively.  Glad they can add all that bullshit to the article.

It's all one Oblast/territorial division

So when they say Sakhalin Oblast, they may just as well be referring to projects on the Kurils (albeit usually they'd be mentioned specifically)

flamming_python wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:seriously, what a fucking shit article.

Sakhalin isn't even part of the Kuril Islands and what Japan wants (what they claim is theirs), are the 4 kuril islands are north east of Japan, while Sakhalin is North-westish...

Man, these articles suck donkey balls big time.

The Kuril Islands are part of Sakhalin Oblast administratively-territorialy

Not of Sakhalin Island itself which this program is for. May fall under it administratively.  Glad they can add all that bullshit to the article.

It's all one Oblast/territorial division

So when they say Sakhalin Oblast, they may just as well be referring to projects on the Kurils (albeit usually they'd be mentioned specifically)

of course they would specifically mention where. Sakhalin is the most populated of the oblast so of course they would be pushing the development there. The part that Reuters added is simply to shit on Russia with nonsense for the sake of it. I mean, after all, they have been proven to be working for British Intelligence agency. Jimmy Dore mentioned this with convo with Arron Matei and Glen Greenwald.

The wildfires ravaging Siberia are quite un natural much like the floods in Germany. Here in India we have already been hit by 3 major cyclones. Western governments are blaming climate change for these events.

But Kremlin needs to investigate if weapons like HAARP were used by the West to cause these catastrophic events.

HAARP is tinfoil hat nonsense. I have been at conferences where US military associated researchers have been looking at using
assimilation frameworks for inverting the sorts of perturbations required to change the weather. None of this work supports any
sensitivity of the atmospheric-ocean system to tiny perturbations that any human technology can produce regardless of configuration
to take advantage of the dynamical state or not. Blowing up several hundred nuclear bombs can impact the weather, but it will
not get you a cyclone on demand.

The often quote "butterfly effect" is ignorant BS. It originates from Lorenz's "butterfly" and the idea of sensitivity to initial conditions.
But neither gives the fantasized super impact of a fart in a wind storm. The dynamical system has dissipation and some butterfly
flapping its wings is not going to generate weather through nonlinear evolution of the system. Dissipation deletes this information
and the nonlinear sensitivity is to larger scale perturbations. In fact, the dissipation happens on multiple spatial and temporal scales.
The primary air diffusion is small, but there is "eddy" diffusion by boundary layer convective "turbulence" and 3D shear turbulence.
There is eddy diffusion at the mesoscale and synoptic scale by continuously generated large scale eddies (weather systems).
The system is layered with so many dynamical features that it breaks down coherent nonlinear resonances and oscillations. It
looks deceptively linear through complexity.

People who dismiss climate change are not educated. Climate is not weather and is not some "variability". It is about the energy
content of the ocean-atmosphere (and land) system. Greenhouse gases do not have a variable effect, they act to accumulate
heat energy that would have been lost to space as IR emissions above the tropopause. So-called skeptics try to argue from the
glaciation cycle during the last 3.3 million years that CO2 follows temperature. So thus it has no role in climate. This is so retarded
that the mind boggles. Orbital perturbations in surface insolation of the Sun's energy impose temperature trends that change the
uptake of CO2 by the oceans. A cooling trend drives more CO2 into the oceans and without some magic source of CO2 showing up
to offset the trend, there will be an amplification of the cooling trend. This is why we get glaciation which also progresses through
increase of surface albedo. We can thank our lucky stars that we live in a geological epoch where this feedback is limited and we
do not get the snowball Earth events from billions of years ago. The CO2 fall stops around 180 ppmv partly because of volcanic
emissions but also because the land ice changes the circulation pattern. When North America is covered with a 3 km thick glacier,
Siberia is free of ice and warmer. Glaciation in the old world is mostly in northern Europe. Another limiting factor is the reduction in
CO2 loss to chemical weathering by land ice. At the same time colder ocean conditions promote the formation of clathrates at shallow
depths. This reservoir of CH4 can be triggered by small changes in the ocean top layer temperature. (The CH4 originates from
biological activity; ocean chemistry is much more influenced by biology than the atmosphere). Orbital perturbations kick us out of the
glaciation through insolation changes which trigger both land ice melt and CH4 release from the oceans. This has happened roughly every
120,000 years in the last 3.3 million years.

I see nobody has mentioned that even if global warming doesnt cause catastrophic habitat loss on land, uncontrolled increase of CO2 will lead to ocean acidification, which will lead to global ocean ecosystem collapse.

Why? Well one of the bases of the oceanic foodchain are foraminifera, and these organism use dissolved calcium carbonate in the water to produce their shells. Without shells they cannot live. Foraminifera, together with diatoms, form the majority of phytoplankton in the world, and if the former has mass die offs, the entire ecosystem collapses.


Ocean acidication has proven that it prevents the reproduction of foraminifera. its not a matter of bleeding heart colored hair alarmists, but a law of biochemistry, and it has been proven that both the permian and cretaceous mass exinctions were caused by increased ocean acidification. Human CO2 output, together with CO released from mass forest fires and  melting permafrost  whas a real chance of causing catastrophic ocean acidification.

This is a good article describing the effects of ocean acidification.

https://www.oceanographicmagazine.com/news/fossil-study-ocean-acidification/
Once the ocean ecosystem collapses, that means massively reduced sustinence for  human population on the coast and the permament destruction of all seafood industries. I dont think this is worth it, even for Russia, but I am confident at least some russian scientists are aware of this fact.




People who think climate change  is good for the envrionment because "more plants" tend to be profoundly ignorant of ecology, escpecially marine ecology, and tend to view the ocean like its an infinitely exploitable resource. The biggest retards are those that simultenaously oppose eating the bugs, but think global warming is no big deal. if you have ocean ecosystem collapse, say bye bye to any seafood, and say hello to land meat, including bugs, to feed the ever rising population.

People who think climate change does not exist are dumber than people who think electric cars will solve all the climate change problems.

There is no period in recorded or documented history where humans had any real control of climate and temperature on this planet or any other.

I personally think there are tipping points where changes lead to other changes that will have dramatic effects well beyond our control.

Short of the invention of a system that can take carbon out of gas directly as a solid then there will be problems for us because it is already probably too late.

Humans let petty minor things get in the way of real honest progress... the west has spent the last few centuries trying to progress itself but at the same time using its power and wealth and energy to hold back rivals and potential rivals to retard their growth and development.

Ironically they are the bad guy in the Wacky Races that expends so much enemy and time trying to sabotage and slow down their rivals they end up losing the race they could have won simply by running the race...

CO2 concentration can definitely be instituted through property collectivization and transition to nuclear and hydrogen energy.

Russia forest fires: New report shows damage worst since records began
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58664997

...


...
The biomass of Russian forests has grown by 39% over the past 26 years.
https://naked-science.ru/article/nakedscience/wildfire


Government of Canada:Why forests need fires, insects and diseases

BBC.

I live in Canada where BC is on fire every year.

Fires create ash from the remains of the trees. Ash is a great fertilizer. It allows new, healthy trees to grow.

Fires are OK if they are natural. But a lot of fires are started by retards. So the frequency of fires is too high, which is not so good for
forests. Then we have the mother of all problems: climate change. The intensity of forest fires is increasing because of global warming.
People can wave their hands about infinite natural sinks and assorted other moronic rationalizations, but a higher temperature extreme
climate state (cold and hot) is not good for life on the planet. It will survive, but that does not mean things are hunky dory.

CO2 being good for plants is neither here, nor there. Some species of weed thrive with higher CO2. But most trees do not scale
up with CO2 concentrations. The climate change induced by CO2 increase brings more damage than benefit.

BTW, the talk of moving cities to Siberia is not "Soviet central planner nonsense". Climate change will make many regions uninhabitable.
Moving north will be mandatory. Smug assumptions about business as usual running into the indefinite future are evidence of lack of
IQ capacity. Things will start going south by 2050 in a clear fashion. There will be mass migration out of the tropics and this will put
pressure on Russia and other countries.

I remember a few Australians complaining after their last lot of forest fires that a huge contributing factor was that traditionally they had had controlled burnoffs to get rid of a lot of dead material that acted as fuel when the fires got out of control.

The greenies said no to controlled burn offs because animals were killed during the burnoffs, and that fire gaps were also considered bad for some reason too, and so they had their worst fires on record... but only because it was the first time they were performing preventative measures like burnoffs and making fire breaks... of course it was immediately all blamed on climate change because obviously 50 degree droughts are worse than 45 degree droughts... except that they are not.... the higher temperatures caused by climate change would actually reduce the amount of vegetation which would reduce the amount of fuel for the fires to burn.

Climate change isn't going to make bush fires worse, it is just going to create an empty lifeless desert...

But the reality is that we should be entering an ice age right now... without carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and water vapour and methane and a host of other chemicals in the air the air temperature would be about 30 degrees colder than it currently is and we could not survive that.... very few things would.

Climate change is normal and we need to learn to deal with the consequences... a big problem is also plastic in the sea and the environment that we have to deal with or that is going to kill sea life on which we very much depend too.