Water Wars

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by HectortheInspector, Oct 21, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    We know the "big picture" much better than you. We just not very emphasized with fate of Unrusses.
    Of course, it is. Even earliest forms of life and proto-life are fighting against environment.
    Ha! Co-dependency is a way for fall of ecosystems and "extinction events".
    System with many strongly co-depended vulnerable elements is usually much more fragile, than consisted from little amunt of solid elements.
    And population consisted from little number of narrow-specialised individuals are much more vulnerable than population consisted from big amount of universal individuals.

    Really? How many "eaters of ecosystems"do you know? Just for start: photosynthetic plants, dafnias, Dinosauria, human... Buy the way, may be genus Panthera were also crushers of their first ecosystem.
    Depends only from the meaning of words "reputable scientist" "significant effect" and "human activity". I mean, it is hard to find even minimal educated man, who will declare that "burning of the fossil fuel" is more significant that a changes of solar activity, cycles of Milancovich, change of ocean and atmospheric circulation, falls of asteroids or even Volcanic erruptions.
    May be, it is more significant that sexual life of the whales, but I'm not sure.
    How many European will survive three years after the end of all import? 20% of current level? Less?

    If you have enough of Energy you always can get enough of Water and Food.
    And your "internationalism" is just a stupid attempt to control world's industry. Neocolonialism, nothing more.

    Really? Ok. How much money are you ready to pay to Russia and Canada for utilisation of CO_2 in our swamps?
    Global warming is not "global problem", until it is not our problem. It is a problem of stupid. And yes, if there are something more dangerous in our world that a usual stupid, it is active and initiative stupid. Can your guarantee, that your attempts to stop "Global warming" can not be a trigger for starting of a new Ice age?
    I'm traditionalist, and I preffer term "Medieval thinking". And yes, your arguments in the near-scientific discussion are typical for cultists and demagogues. I can say more: it sound as "give us some food, because we have no enough sh-t to muck your door".
    • Show again braincell Show again braincell x 1
  2. Not much time it appears, as it is being seen now.
  3. People with money are not going to go hungry, and the EU countries have money. It's going to be the third world poor who are going to go hungry, and they will take up arms to fight over the scraps.
  4. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    That is exactly what I mean. All "greenhouse effects" are already active and we need something more to reach temperatures of the Paeleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
  5. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    It was last mistake of Boris Godunov. People can not eat silver. Virtual money are not more edible.
    Third world countries can not be seriouse threat to nuclear powers. And Ponzi scheme of dollars/Euro earlier or later will fall.
    Ok. Let's imagine (just for game) that Little Ice Age was not Bond Event. Real Bond Event N0 (much more seriouse) starts in 2018. Winter temperatures in Europe are falling, demand of the fuel is growing. How much fuel will burn UK even in -20C? How many fuel will burn Poland in -40C? But also there are droughts in all Europe, including Russia.
    Russia and Norway bans export of food and fuel (we need much more fuel for our own agricultural needs).
    Demand of fuel is increased twice, but without Russia and Norway you have -50% of the fuel suggestion on EU market.
    Will EU send Army in Norway?
  6. Those third world countries will fight with themselves and with each other, which is the main theme of this thread. That will disrupt trade and cause attempted migration of the population elsewhere, as we are seeing now with Syria.

    We can talk about "what if" all day long, but it would mean nothing. If you want to discuss possible consequences, then cite a reputable study which provides some hard numbers to debate.
  7. False comparisons.
    Firstly, it has long been known that geological changes in land mass are associated with major reordering of oceanic flow, with significant climate effects, mass extinctions and so on.
    The key point is that these take place over geological time scales. Ecologies have had some time to adapt.
    Saying that you can't replicate previous temperature maxima without replicating the ocean currents is utter nonsense. The world has been significantly hotter and cooler at various times due to a whole range of geographical and climatic reasons.

    Time to see greenhouse effects? Well, we have seen pretty much spontaneous cooling effects from volcanic aerosol eruptions, so we know that the atmosphere can react quickly to contaminants.
    We know the ozone layer began to decay from the use of industrial chemicals introduced only in the 19th and 20th centuries.
    We know from ice core analysis that the pre industrial atmosphere was much lower in CO2 and was notably cooler.
    My guess is that greenhouse gas effects would start to show within perhaps a century of industrialisation, BUT that effects are non linear. It's not a scaled 1 percent CO2 equals x degree change. It's 1 per cent CO2 equals x degrees up to point A. Then it becomes 1 equals x plus y per cent up to point B. Then 1 equals x plus y plus a up to point B.
    "Runaway greenhouses" are theoretically possible, and many point to the planet Venus as an example.

    Nothing new here, but it probably doesn't fit the Kremlin zero- sum narrative that climate disasters are actually good, because they weaken the foreign enemy, and any that hit Russia will have no effect because "Russia is Stronk."
    It does not matter if the last Homo Sapiens starves to death, so long as he does it on what was Russian territory, and his last words were in Russian, that's a win for Russia!
  8. Quite possibly.
    But that opens a very different can of worms on aid spending, and decision making over what sort of aid is appropriate.
  9. Really? Earlier in this thread someone named @HectortheInspector was referencing a source quoting a Russian cabinet minister and other government officials as saying that climate change was having negative effects on Russia. Perhaps you would like to have a word with him.
    Water Wars
  10. Oh, him.
    Nothing new on the science side to those who have an interest.Even Russians.
    Possibly news to a troll who selectively reads everything with a view to the promotion of Russia Uber Alles.
  11. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    Burning of fossil fuel in 2008 - 8,6 Gt of CO_2.
    Cracatau eruption in 1883 - 80-100 Gt of CO_2.
    Tambora eruption in 1815 - near 500 Gt of CO_2.

    Only two big erruptions make more CO_2 emission much more than all humanity for all time of burning fossil fuel.
  12. Your point is?

    The world can handle the occasional one off spike of poisonous gas, but it hasn't had time to get used to the CONTINUAL and INCREASING amounts of man made emissions.
    Moreover, a number of other gases have greenhouse impacts that aren't CO2.
    Russia is already venting huge amounts of methane from under melting permafrost.
    7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to 'explode' in Arctic

    Large craters are opening up in Siberia Even you must have heard of this.
  13. YarS

    YarS On ROPs

    Increasing? Forget about it. Oil is finishing and winter is coming. And yes, question is not only in emissions of CO_2, but in ability of ocean and swamps to utilize it. And this ability is growing with increasing of CO_2 concentration. I can say more - most effective greenhouse gas is H_2O (water vapour, for Brits) and choping (or burning) of trees is a good way to decrease it's emissions. Slogan "Save a tree - kill a beaver!"
    can be changed on "Cool the planet - burn trees".

    Of course, I heard about it. But hunting on big herbivores can also decrease emissions of methane.
    All this is nothing, comparing with possibilities of negative feedback of ocean-athmosphere systems.
    But even if we really will reach temperatures of Atlantic optimum (I very doubt in it) - there are nothing bad in it.
  14. Once again, you miss the point. What happens when the ocean absorbs CO2? You think it turns into pixy dust? It turns into acid. It isn't that the oceans can't absorb it. It is what happens when it does.

    Oceanic PH has shown rapid change, and that is killing off anything that uses carbonate in its biology- Corals, krill, shellfish and so on.
    That then feeds into strained ecosystems worldwide.

    Ocean acidification - Wikipedia

    The next issue is what happens with a warming oceanic climate, especially with an artificial boost to plant growth from dissolved fertilisers (eutrophication)
    The algae runs riot, then dies off, consuming the oxygen. You end up with 'Dead zones' where nothing animal can survive.
    Dead zone (ecology) - Wikipedia
    Most of the Baltic is poisoned with Russian toxic run off.
    Baltic Sea hypoxia - Wikipedia
    Lake Baikal is also affected.

    Your mindset is entirely land based. You think that Russia can survive because it is big, and isn't affected by the oceans except at the edges.
    Wrong on all counts as usual.