Literally the only reason I can think of for Russia to blow up their own pipeline is for an excuse to release a shitton of methane into the air.
Russia benefits from global warming in two ways, Siberia becoming livable and the West throwing money down the toilet to electrify everything, which raises the price of gas since Western policy wants high fossil fuel prices to mask the cost (no new drilling/leasing under Biden for instance).
Yeah..... that kind of climate change is less out of mankind's control (unless geo-engineering becomes a thing) and more the result of, say, yellowstone exploding.
Though if that were to happen, and we all still had Internet somehow, I have good news and bad news on this forum
The good news is they'd be no more posts about leftists, they'd be dead
Bad news, all future topics will be where the raiders are, different ways to enjoy gruel and which plant can I eat without dying.
Releasing a shitton of methane would be geo-engineering. It's like 100x more effective per volume than CO2.
Apparently this pipeline explosion was the single largest release of methane to date and is equivalent an entire year's worth of other methane emissions (~500 million tons of methane). Other sources say only 100,000 tons were in the pipeline so the 500 million must have been fake news.
Although this should only boost greenhouse gasses like an extra 1% or 2% tiny amount this year so it's not a good reason to suspect Russia... but could make sense in a two birds with one stone type situation.
Yeah it gives Russia too much credit that they played this 5D chess move to false flag
When the simple answer is America did it, it's allies are all denying they did it, they hope either Ukraine stops pushing or that Putin is bluffing that if Ukraine cross the new Russian territory that nukes are going to be used.
That Nord stream explosion is not even a drop into an ocean. You need something with much more power (say, Yellowstone or a big asteroid) to make significant changes in the climate.
But Russia does indeed something in the Arctic: a "Polar Silk Road", together with China. It would cut ship travel from Asia to Europe almost by half. Here a video: https://youtu.be/pvy9usF7ohE
Currently 580 million tons get into the atmosphere/yr so if Russia went scorched earth they could increase methane by 40%.
Methane accounts for about 20% of warming. So they could increase climate change by 10%.
Not enough to melt Siberia anytime soon, but you definitely don't need a supervolcano or asteroid to change the climate - it's well within out power as humans to destroy the climate just as we can save it with geo-engineering.
A question: You DO realize that these data come from the same type of nutters that were wrong about climate and "climate change" for like 60 Years straight, right?
Why?
Because it was never about the climate.
Not about you, but I would trust their "science" as far as I can throw it (that goes even more now, since the WEF just said that they are "owning the science" on climate change, and that they are cooperating with Google to manipulate/censor results. Totally trustworthy indeed)
What's nutty is their prognostications of doom and the fecklessness of their solutions, not the basic physical science.
Molecules absorb or reflect energy at different wavelengths, this basic mechanism is not open to interpretation for anyone who has actually studied chemistry and physics.
Siberia is warming that's why there's methane explosions from permafrost melting, sea level is rising a bit, glaciers melting, and so on. But we don't solve it by overhauling our entire energy infrastructure with something way more costly and impractical, we solve it with seeding iron in the ocean, debris near L1 lagrange, increasing albedo with sulfates, and so on. Even fission combined with direct air capture is a better solution, more so if we get fusion working which seems likely since commercial magnets are so strong now.
The people that think 100 years from now we'll have a climate crisis have zero imagination or perspective on how radically fast technology advances; there's zero chance in 100 years we'll have a climate crisis unless civilization ends in which case who cares.
There's no reason why they would need to do that by blowing up their own very expensive pipeline. This could easily be done in Russia with no negative consequences.
Literally the only reason I can think of for Russia to blow up their own pipeline is for an excuse to release a shitton of methane into the air.
Russia benefits from global warming in two ways, Siberia becoming livable and the West throwing money down the toilet to electrify everything, which raises the price of gas since Western policy wants high fossil fuel prices to mask the cost (no new drilling/leasing under Biden for instance).
Yeah..... that kind of climate change is less out of mankind's control (unless geo-engineering becomes a thing) and more the result of, say, yellowstone exploding.
Though if that were to happen, and we all still had Internet somehow, I have good news and bad news on this forum
The good news is they'd be no more posts about leftists, they'd be dead
Bad news, all future topics will be where the raiders are, different ways to enjoy gruel and which plant can I eat without dying.
Releasing a shitton of methane would be geo-engineering. It's like 100x more effective per volume than CO2.
Apparently this pipeline explosion was the single largest release of methane to date and is equivalent an entire year's worth of other methane emissions
(~500 million tons of methane).Other sources say only 100,000 tons were in the pipeline so the 500 million must have been fake news.Although this should only boost greenhouse gasses like an
extra 1% or 2%tiny amount this year so it's not a good reason to suspect Russia... but could make sense in a two birds with one stone type situation.Yeah it gives Russia too much credit that they played this 5D chess move to false flag
When the simple answer is America did it, it's allies are all denying they did it, they hope either Ukraine stops pushing or that Putin is bluffing that if Ukraine cross the new Russian territory that nukes are going to be used.
That Nord stream explosion is not even a drop into an ocean. You need something with much more power (say, Yellowstone or a big asteroid) to make significant changes in the climate.
But Russia does indeed something in the Arctic: a "Polar Silk Road", together with China. It would cut ship travel from Asia to Europe almost by half. Here a video: https://youtu.be/pvy9usF7ohE
670 billion cubic meters of natural gas production * 0.55 kg/m^3 / 1000 kg/ton = 370 million tons
Currently 580 million tons get into the atmosphere/yr so if Russia went scorched earth they could increase methane by 40%.
Methane accounts for about 20% of warming. So they could increase climate change by 10%.
Not enough to melt Siberia anytime soon, but you definitely don't need a supervolcano or asteroid to change the climate - it's well within out power as humans to destroy the climate just as we can save it with geo-engineering.
A question: You DO realize that these data come from the same type of nutters that were wrong about climate and "climate change" for like 60 Years straight, right?
Why?
Because it was never about the climate.
Not about you, but I would trust their "science" as far as I can throw it (that goes even more now, since the WEF just said that they are "owning the science" on climate change, and that they are cooperating with Google to manipulate/censor results. Totally trustworthy indeed)
What's nutty is their prognostications of doom and the fecklessness of their solutions, not the basic physical science.
Molecules absorb or reflect energy at different wavelengths, this basic mechanism is not open to interpretation for anyone who has actually studied chemistry and physics.
Siberia is warming that's why there's methane explosions from permafrost melting, sea level is rising a bit, glaciers melting, and so on. But we don't solve it by overhauling our entire energy infrastructure with something way more costly and impractical, we solve it with seeding iron in the ocean, debris near L1 lagrange, increasing albedo with sulfates, and so on. Even fission combined with direct air capture is a better solution, more so if we get fusion working which seems likely since commercial magnets are so strong now.
The people that think 100 years from now we'll have a climate crisis have zero imagination or perspective on how radically fast technology advances; there's zero chance in 100 years we'll have a climate crisis unless civilization ends in which case who cares.
There's no reason why they would need to do that by blowing up their own very expensive pipeline. This could easily be done in Russia with no negative consequences.